Agenda 3 March 2015 NT

PLANNING COMMITTEE

3 March 2015

RECOMMENDATIONS OF CHIEF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

ON APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY

THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Background papers used in the preparation of these reports are filed in the relevant application files, unless otherwise stated PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA - 3 March 2015 - NUMERIC INDEX

REF. NO. APPLICANT SITE ITEM PAGE

14/00435/OUT Jupiter Strategic Land At Cunnery Close West Of 01 2 Land Bosworth Road East Of A447 Ashby Road Osbaston

12/00295/OUT C/o Agent Barwell Sustainable Urban 02 20 Extension (SUE) Land West Of Barwell Ashby Road Barwell

14/00674/FUL Charles Church Land At Station Road 03 136 North Midlands Market Bosworth

14/01109/OUT Trustees Of E J Yew Tree Farm Main Street 04 178 Madders Barton In The Beans

14/01199/OUT Mr Trevor Allcoat Land Rear Of Woodbeech Kennels 05 188 9 Woodgate Road Burbage

14/00780/FUL Mr R & A Dhir Odstone Hill House Newton Lane 06 200 Odstone

14/00827/LBC Mr R & A Dhir Odstone Hill House Newton Lane 07 213 Odstone

15/00027/HOU Mrs C Southall 15 Spinney Road Burbage 08 220

14/01220/FUL Mrs J Baines Wood Farm Stanton Lane Ellistown 09 226

14/01248/FUL Mr David Lock Aston Oaks Sapcote Road 10 231 Burbage

14/01104/FUL Mr Adam Preston Land Leicester Lane Desford 11 239

Item: 01

Reference: 14/00435/OUT

Applicant: Jupiter Strategic Land

Location: Land At Cunnery Close West Of Bosworth Road East Of A447 Ashby Road Osbaston

Proposal: Erection of up to 450 dwellings, 900m 2 of B1 uses, 400m 2 of A1 to A4 uses 1300m 2 of D1 uses (Outline - Access Only)

RECOMMENDATION:- Refuse planning permission.

Introduction:-

Application Proposal

This is an outline application of the erection of up to 450 dwellings, 900m2 of business/light industrial (B1) uses, 400m 2 of retail, financial and professional services, restaurants and drinking establishment (A1 to A4) uses and 1300m 2 of non-residential institution (D1) uses. All matters are reserved with the exception of access which is for consideration.

During the course of the application, the position of the access has been amended. The primary access would be taken from the A447 (Ashby Road). The A447 would be realigned to incorporate a new roundabout to serve the proposal. This would be sited towards the southern end of the sites south western boundary. In addition four further points of access would be taken from the A447, to the north of the proposed roundabout.

The secondary point of access would be taken from an existing spur off Cunnery Close. This is a post war residential estate, located to the north of the site.

The application is supported by an Environmental Statement (ES). The ES is the report of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) carried out for the proposal.

Site and Surrounding Area

During the course of the application the site area has been revised. The site has been reduced through the omission of two parcels of agricultural land to the northern and southern boundaries.

The site covers an area of 24.5 hectares and comprises land to the south west of Barlestone and to the north of Osbaston. The site is bounded to the A447 to the west, Bosworth Road to the south and east, and existing residential development to the north. Bosworth Road Local Open Space is adjacent to the site’s north and eastern boundaries.

The site currently comprises of arable agricultural land, with the individual fields predominantly bound by hedgerow. There is an indent into the site along the northern boundary; this forms the ‘Bull Pen’. This wooded area falls outside the application site and constitutes a Parish Wildlife Site.

A watercourse runs through the site from the Bull Pen through the centre of the site to the eastern boundary. The site slopes gradually from west to east.

Technical Documents submitted the application

Planning Statement Design and Access Statement Flood Risk Assessment Transport Assessment and Travel Plan Ground Condition Survey and Minerals Safeguarding Bio-diversity Survey and Report Air Quality Assessment Noise and Vibration Assessment Heritage and Archaeology Environmental Statement

Relevant Planning History:-

13/01120/SCOPE Request for EIA Screening & Scoping Opinion 20.02.14

Consultations:-

As the application is EIA development the Secretary of State has been notified and has not called the application in.

No objection subject to conditions has been received from:-

Environment Agency Severn Trent Water Limited Leicestershire County Council (Minerals) Leicestershire County Council (Ecology) Leicestershire County Council (Highways) Leicestershire County Council (Footpaths) Street Scene Services (Waste) Environmental Health (Pollution) Environmental Health (Drainage).

As a result of the Developer Contribution consultation, the following requests have been made:- a) Leicestershire County Council (Civic Amenity) requests £22,289 b) Leicestershire County Council (Libraries) requests £26,950 c) Leicestershire County Council (Education) requests £529.851.49 (primary), £1.343.394.10 (secondary) and £190.379.82 (Post 16) d) Leicestershire County Council (Waste) requests £22,289 e) Leicestershire Police requests £149,467 f) NHS England requests £392,040

David Tredinnick MP has objected to the proposal on the following grounds:- a) the site is not accessible by sustainable modes of transport b) concerns in relation to the proposed vehicular access points c) queries in relation to the methodology used for vehicle trip rates and junction assessments.

County Councillor Ould has objected to the application on the following grounds:- a) the proposal is contrary to the LDF and is outside the development boundary of Osbaston and Barlestone b) Osbaston residents were not consulted by the developers on the ‘Big Listen’ event c) local residents have no confidence that the development would be delivered with the ancillary facilities proposed d) highway safety concerns e) concerns over the capacity of local schools f) proposal would be contrary to the Localism Agenda g) concerns in respect of foul sewage disposal h) flooding concerns i) proposal would be contrary to Policy NE5 of the Local Plan.

Barlestone Parish Council has objected to the application on the following grounds:- a) principle of development - the allocation for Barlestone has already been met b) highway safety and access concerns c) queries in respect of the finish, location and lighting of proposed footpaths d) concerns over the planned phasing of the development e) queries regarding the provision of the Medical Centre f) clarification as to how the development will cut crime g) queries in respect of the maintenance of the green spaces h) queries in relation to the provision of the new bus service i) clarification in respect of foul sewage disposal j) concerns in relation to the local schools and their capacity.

Osbaston Parish Council has objected to the application on the following grounds:- a) the proposed population increase would be overwhelming and unsustainable b) highway safety and access concerns c) flooding and drainage concerns.

Council for the Protection of Rural England has objected on the following grounds:- a) highway safety grounds b) proposal would result in additional pollution c) development is unsustainable d) the proposal would destroy the character of the village and surrounding countryside e) the development is unnecessary as the allocation for Barlestone has been met f) proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the hamlet of Osbaston and on Osbaston Hall g) 300 dwellings would be built in Osbaston where there is no residential allocation h) proposal would result in the loss of good agricultural land i) allowing the proposal would negate and contravene the Localism Bill.

Site notices and a press notice were displayed and neighbours notified.

113 letters of neighbour objection were received in relation to scheme as originally proposed. These raise the following concerns:- a) principle of residential development in Osbaston b) development would be outside the settlement limits of Barlestone and Osbaston c) loss of agricultural land d) potential adverse impacts on a mineral resource e) development would not be in accordance with the Core Strategy, particularly in regards to housing allocation in Barlestone and Osbaston f) local facilities and infrastructure would be unable to accommodate the increase in population, in particular in relation to foul sewage disposal and schools g) size of the development and concerns it would result in overdevelopment of the site h) concerns regarding highway safety, parking issues and congestion in relation to the increase in vehicles on the existing road networks i) concerns regarding the proposed primary and secondary access to the site, in terms of congestion. j) development would be out of character with the area and would have an adverse effect on the countryside k) development would be detrimental to local wildlife l) development would impact on the local tourist industry m) concerns regarding the lack of employment opportunities in the area to cater for the increase in population n) the proposed mix of facilities are not required in the area o) loss of green and open space p) concern over impacts on the Osbaston conservation area q) concerns relating to the layout proposed r) adverse impacts on visual amenity s) concerns over noise, light, odour and visual pollution and consequently that the development would attract pests t) concerns that the development would increase flood risk u) the site is not brownfield land v) development would be against the Localism Bill – does not take into account the view of local communities w) the proposed factory would not be occupied

5 x) the development would result in the merging of Barlestone and Osbaston y) objection to the type of houses proposed. Insufficient affordable housing z) the residents of Osbaston were not consulted on the scheme aa) the developer has submitted another application for dwellings on Brookside/Spinney Drive, which would meet the housing allocation numbers in Barlestone bb) the proposal would de-value properties in the area cc) concerns regarding the Council Tax contributions for upkeep of proposed facilities dd) would affect the views from existing houses of the countryside ee) proposed development will attract “non-village” people ff) applications for house extensions in the area are normally refused gg) development would have an adverse impact on the village community hh) concerns that some Councillors have not declared an interest in the application ii) the proposed facilities would not be able to be maintained, due to government funding cuts jj) the proposal would alter the demographics of the area kk) existing houses for sale within the area have not been sold ll) similarities drawn with the Good Friday Gypsy and Traveller site mm) concerns that emergency services will be unable to access areas of the development nn) concerns regarding cleaning and maintenance of the area oo) concerns that the development would result in anti-social behaviour from the increase in youth population.

In response to the amended plan re-consultation, 28 letters of neighbour representation have been received raising the following additional issues:- a) objection to any form development in the area b) proposal has not altered from previous scheme c) concerns regarding pedestrian access within and around the site d) relocation of retail area will create more traffic issues e) objection to the design of proposed dwellings f) development would be irreversible g) new proposed access is worse that what was originally submitted h) development would not benefit the existing residents of Barlestone i) no requirement for a community sports pitch.

Three letters of support have been received in relation to the scheme.

Additionally, a petition with a total of 432 signatures has been received. The petition states an objection to the proposed development on the basis of increased traffic, overdevelopment of the site and a lack of facilities and amenities available to the support the development.

Development Plan Policies:-

National Policy Guidance

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) 2014 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011

Local Plan 2006-2026: Core Strategy 2009

Policy 7: Key Rural Centres Policy 11: Key Rural Centres Stand Alone Policy 14: Rural Areas: Transport Policy 15: Affordable Housing Policy 16: Housing Density, Mix and Design Policy 19: Green Space and Play Provision Policy 20: Green Infrastructure Policy 24: Sustainable Design and Technology

Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001

Policy IMP1: Contributions towards the Provision of Infrastructure and Facilities Policy RES5: Residential Proposals on Unallocated Sites Policy NE5: Development in the Countryside Policy NE12: Landscaping Schemes Policy NE14: Protection of Surface Waters and Groundwater Quality Policy BE1: Design and Siting of Development Policy REC2: New Residential Development - Outdoor Open Space Provision for Formal Policy REC3: New Residential Development - Outdoor Play Space for Children Policy T5: Highway Design and Vehicle Parking Standards Policy T9: Facilities for Cyclists and Pedestrians

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents

New Residential Development (SPG) Play and Open Space (SPD) Affordable Housing (SPD) Sustainable Design (SPD)

Other Material Policy Guidance

Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Pre- Submission) – February 2014 Green Space Strategy: Landscape Character Assessment (2006) Employment Land and Premises Study (2013)

Appraisal:-

The main considerations in determination of this application are:-

• Principle of development • Character and impacts on the countryside • Access and highway considerations • Residential amenity • Infrastructure obligations and viability • Minerals • Drainage and flood risk • Ecology • Contamination • Agricultural land

Principle of Development

Paragraph 11 - 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the development plan is the starting point for decision taking and that it is a material consideration in determining applications. The development plan in this instance consists of the Core Strategy (2009) and the saved policies of the Local Plan (2001).

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to this, economic, social and environmental which give rise to the planning system to perform a number of roles. These roles are mutually dependant; therefore to achieve sustainable development, such gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously.

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF sets out that to deliver the presumption in favour of sustainable development, for decision taking this means:

• Approving development proposals which accord with the development plan without delay, and • Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless; − Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, or − Specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

The Spatial Strategy

The Core Strategy provides the spatial strategy and directions for growth in the borough over the plan period to 2026. The development strategy is based on a hierarchy of settlements with the majority of this growth accommodated in and around the Hinckley sub regional centre. The growth would primarily be delivered through two Sustainable Urban Extensions at Earl Shilton and Barwell and allocations within the town of Hinckley. Paragraph 4.5 of the Core Strategy notes that a proportion of growth will also be distributed to the rural areas of the borough, to support sustainable rural communities and provide local choice.

Spatial Objective 5: Housing for Everyone states “The focus of development will be in and around the Hinckley urban area, with more limited development in the rural areas to meet local needs” .

The Core Strategy includes a spatial strategy for rural areas, of which Barlestone is classified as a Key Rural Centre. Key Rural Centres are defined as villages that have populations of over 1500 people and have a primary school, local shop, post office, GP, community / leisure facilities, employment and a 6 day a week bus service (hourly).

Paragraph 4.29 of the Core Strategy reiterates that the focus of most new development will be in and around the Hinckley sub regional centre but states that “…the needs of rural settlements must also be taken into account to ensure they remain vibrant, mixed communities”.

Policy 7 of the Core Strategy provides the overarching policy for Key Rural Centres. Specifically it supports housing development within settlement boundaries that provide a mix of housing types and tenures as set out in Policies 15 and 16 of the Core Strategy.

Policy 11 provides the policy framework for stand alone Key Rural Centres. Specifically for Barlestone this policy sets out a range of criteria which seek to support the local services in the settlement and maintain rural population levels. In respect of housing provision, the policy

8 states that the Council will allocate land for the development of a minimum of 40 new homes over the plan period.

The Borough Council’s spatial strategy as set out in Policy 11 of the Core Strategy seeks to support local services in Barlestone and ensure the necessary housing provision to maintain existing population levels. The proposed development includes the provision of up to 450 new homes, which is more than 11 times the identified requirements for Barlestone (not including the emerging allocations and sites with planning permission) and over a 40% increase in the number of existing dwellings in the village. The number of dwellings proposed constitutes a disproportionate increase in housing numbers and would be likely to result in a significant adverse effect on the social sustainability and cultural wellbeing of the community of Barlestone. This would conflict with the spatial strategy for growth as set out in the Core Strategy.

Whilst the scheme proposes to include a range of facilities to serve the local population and beyond; this does not in itself justify that the development, or the settlement of Barlestone as a sustainable location for a significant level of growth.

Barlestone’s categorisation as a Key Rural Centre acknowledges the character, context and function of the settlement. The scheme proposes a range of facilities and services and it is acknowledged that these could result in benefits to the existing community, as well as to future occupants of the proposed dwellings. However, there is no clear justification as to the relationship between Barlestone and the need for this scale of development, or between the type and level of services/facilities proposed, and the existing and proposed population.

Emerging Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document

Whilst the Core Strategy provides the development strategy and directions for growth for the Borough, the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (SADMDPD) allocates land for a range of uses including housing, employment and open spaces to deliver the spatial strategy in conformity with the strategic policies of the Core Strategy. The SADDMPD was subject to consultation on the pre-submission draft in February 2014 and proposed modifications in December 2014. The SADDMDPD will be submitted to the Secretary of State in March 2015 for examination in the summer of 2015.

The weight to be attached to the SADMDPD is discussed below, however in regard to the allocations relating to Barlestone, the SADMDPD makes provision for the minimum housing requirement of 46 dwellings to 2026. Furthermore, it acknowledges the two existing sites with planning permission (Garden Farm and Spinney Drive) which in total contribute 56 dwellings. The SADMDPD therefore allocates for a total of 102 dwellings, 62 above the minimum requirement as set out in Policy 11 of the Core Strategy.

The applicant is proposing a substantial mixed use development including a large number of dwellings, more than 11 times the minimum allocated requirement for Barlestone, which has already been significantly exceeded. This unprecedented amount of growth in this location would completely undermine the SADMDPD and thus the boroughs spatial strategy.

Housing Land Supply

Paragraph 47 of the NPPF states that local authorities should identify and update annually a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements. They should also provide an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the Plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the Plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.

As of 1 October 2014 the Council has a five year supply of deliverable housing sites plus a 5% buffer. Therefore the housing supply policies as set out in the Core Strategy and in particular Policy 11 in this instance, are considered to be up-to-date.

Employment

Policy 7 of the Core Strategy states that the Council will ensure there is a range of employment opportunities within the Key Rural Centres and to support this, the enhancement of allocated employment sites in the Key Rural Centres will be supported. Specifically in relation to Barlestone, Policy 11 of the Core Strategy states, to support the local services and maintain rural population levels the council will “…support additional employment provision to meet local needs in line with Policy 7” .

Paragraph 4.32 of the Core Strategy identifies that Barlestone is an anomaly within the Key Rural Centres, in that it has no employment provision. As such, encouraging employment uses within the settlement is a key objective of Policy 11.

The Employment Land and Premises Study (2013) considers the employment land needs for the borough over the plan period to 2026. Through the consultation process conducted during the preparation of this study, Barlestone Parish Council identified a need for light industrial units, (B1 (c)) to replace the decline of traditional local industries. During the assessment of Key Rural Centres, the study identified that the local market could potentially support a scheme of small workshops, (5 x 100-200 sqm) to provide local employment opportunities.

The study concludes by recommending that a small workshop scheme of this size is considered necessary for the settlement.

The applicant is proposing the inclusion of between 700 – 900 sqm of B1 light industrial units and acknowledges the findings of the Employment Land and Premises Study. Whilst this is considered to be a benefit of the scheme, in that it would provide for such employment needs of the existing population and would contribute towards economic growth; given the scale of this development, which would result in an increase in the number of dwellings in Barlestone by 40%, there would be an even greater need for further employment provision, to support this significant growth.

Neither the Environmental Statement nor the Planning Statement provide further assessment of local need to support the total level of growth proposed as required by Policy 11. The proposed employment provision would meet requirements within Policies 7 and 11 of the Core Strategy, which is a benefit of the scheme; however these benefits are not considered to outweigh the overall harm cause by the scheme in terms of its unsustainable form.

Town Centre Uses

Policy 7 of the Core Strategy supports new retail development to meet local need within defined local centre boundaries in the Key Rural Centres, providing it will have no detrimental impact on the Hinckley Town Centre. The scheme proposes a range of defined ‘main town centre’ uses including the provision of 400m 2 of retail space .

In accordance with paragraph 24 of the NPPF, a sequential site assessment has been undertaken. Paragraph 5.79 of the Planning Statement concludes that there were no units available and suitable more centrally, that could accommodate additional retail provision within Barlestone. The applicant acknowledges (paragraph 4.19) that the demand for such facilities (neighbourhood centre uses) is unknown, but considers the provision of such as an important contribution to the sustainability of the scheme.

The applicant seeks to justify the sustainability credentials of the proposal on the basis of the mix of uses provided. As detailed information has not been received in respect of the potential impacts of the retail provision on existing facilities in the local and wider area, it is not possible to define and understand these impacts in terms of vitality and viability. In this respect the scheme does not accord with Paragraph 26 of the NPPF.

Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan 2001

The site lies outside the existing settlement boundary of Barlestone as identified on the existing adopted Local Plan Proposals Map and as such Policies NE5, Development in the Countryside and RES5, Residential Proposals on Unallocated Sites are relevant to this application.

The intention of both policies is to guide development to appropriate locations, whilst permitting certain forms of sustainable development that are considered to be appropriate in rural locations.

Policy NE5 provides criteria against which development in the countryside should be assessed and must demonstrate conformity, if there are to be considered acceptable.

The applicant states that the development strategy for Barlestone cannot be delivered within the settlement boundary and the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD seeks to allocate sites that are required beyond settlement boundaries where they are found to be sustainable. As referred to above, the scale of development being proposed within the spatial strategy for Barlestone is not comparable to the proposed scheme. Nevertheless the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD undertakes a review of settlement boundaries, of which Barlestone’s is revised to accommodate extant planning permissions and proposed allocations.

As the proposed scheme would be situated outside of the settlement boundary, it would not therefore accord with the criteria set out in a-c of Policy NE5 of the Local Plan and thus would be contrary to the intentions of this policy.

The Planning Balance

Economic

Annex 2 of the NPPF states that housing development does not constitute economic development, however it is acknowledged that the proposed scheme would contribute towards the wider economy, through construction jobs. In addition, whilst some employment land is provided, it is considered this would be to the benefit of the existing population and not the population resulting from the housing growth. The applicant has not demonstrated that the provision of main town centre uses would not result in an adverse impact upon the Hinckley town centre or the Barlestone Local Centre. Therefore, whilst the scheme would result in some economic benefits, these would be minimal and would not substantially benefit the local or wider rural economy as a whole.

Social

The delivery of both market and affordable housing is a social benefit. The applicant states that the development would contribute directly towards housing provision to meet established needs, and that without new development, given its ageing population, the village would continue to decline. The applicant refers to perceived benefits of the scheme through providing a range of facilities and open space. Notwithstanding this, as discussed, in the context of the development plan, by virtue of its significant scale the development proposed would considerably exceed the identified policy requirement’s for the area, which seek to “meet an established need” and would instead skew and compromise the Council’s spatial

11 strategy as set out in the Core Strategy and emerging Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD.

Aside from the fact that the scheme does not accord with the Council’s spatial strategy, no overriding evidence has been provided to justify that the scale of housing proposed is necessary to sustain Barlestone, nor is there any assessment that the required facilities and services would be commensurate to cater for the needs of the existing, and proposed population. On this basis the development cannot be considered to meet the social strand of sustainability.

Environmental

The proposal would result in the loss of a large area of greenfield, agricultural land. This land acts as a landscape buffer to the settlement of Barlestone, and between the settlements of Barlestone and Osbaston. Whilst it is acknowledged that there would be some environmental benefits to the scheme, in that it would provide an opportunity to enhance local biodiversity, such benefits would be limited. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF seeks to “ protect and enhance our natural environment…minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy”. It should be noted that whilst the applicant states that the scheme will benefit the settlement and surrounding hinterland, the provision of facilities such as the leisure and retail provision could have a wider catchment resulting in a significant number of transport movements. Similarly the large number of dwellings is likely to result in significant out commuting, particularly to the wider Hinckley urban area. Further details of the environmental harm that the development would create upon the rural countryside are discussed below.

Character and Impact on the Countryside

Criterion i – iii of saved Policy NE5, constitutes design criteria which seeks to ensure that new development in the countryside does not have an adverse effect on the appearance or character of the landscape, is in keeping with the scale and character of existing buildings and the general surrounds, and where necessary is effectively screened.

Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that the natural and local environment should be enhanced, by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils.

Various landscape studies have been undertaken within the vicinity of the site. The site falls within an area described as forming part of the Leicestershire and South Derbyshire Coalfield. Key features of this area are its undulating landscape, mixed arable and pasture with small field and low dense hedgerows with few hedgerow trees. In terms of residential development, former mining towns and villages within the area forming a relatively dense settlement pattern are identified.

Within the Landscape Character Assessment 2006, Barlestone is defined as being within the Forest Hills Character Area. This areas key characteristics include its undulating rural landscape, large scale field pattern, with groups of smaller fields surrounding settlements and linear settlements of former mining villages. The landscape strategy for this area seeks to ensure that the siting and design of new development complements the existing settlement pattern of the area. However, the wider area is more resilient to change due to the evolving nature of the landscape.

The site comprises a parcel of agricultural land, with an area of 24.5 hectares. The land is currently in arable use and is subdivided into three large fields. The internal subdivision and the perimeter of the site to the east, south and west predominantly comprises maintained

12 native hedgerow. This boundary treatment allows long, uninterrupted views towards the settlement beyond, and exposes the site.

The site forms a physical buffer to the settlement of Barlestone, which is located to its north. The A447, which constitutes a primary transportation route runs adjacent to its western boundary. Although this is a primary route, it is of rural character, resultant of its wide verges, with limited street furniture and lighting.

Settlements to the east of the A447, including Barlestone are predominantly set back from this route by agricultural land, which enhances and further defines the areas’ rural, undeveloped character.

Historically Barlestone constituted a linear settlement, but saw expansion during the post war period to its north and south. Its broadly linear form has been retained, and its development limits are strongly defined by the surrounding agricultural land.

This proposal would result in an incongruous form of urban development to the southern edge of the settlement of Barlestone. It would fail to respect the existing pattern of development within the village, to the detriment of its historic form. Furthermore, the introduction of built development of such a significant scale in this rural location would result in irreversible, detrimental landscape impacts and would erode the rural character of the immediate setting and wider area.

To enable the development, significant highway works have been proposed as part of this scheme. These include partial realignment and widening of the A447, to facilitate a new roundabout, and four additional, single points of access to its north. This considerable engineering solution would urbanise and formalise the area in its own right, resulting in further degradation of the rural character.

The assessment above illustrates that the proposal, resultant of its siting, scale and associated infrastructure requirements would have an adverse effect on the appearance and character of the landscape and would overwhelm the character of existing buildings and its general surroundings. The development is therefore considered contrary to criterion i and ii of Policy NE5 of the Local Plan and the specific landscape strategy identified for this area within the Hinckley and Bosworth Landscape Character Assessment and Paragraph 109 of the NPPF.

Access and Highway Considerations

Policies T5 and BE1 (criterion g) of the Local Plan seek to ensure that new developments have adequate visibility, parking and turning facilities and that the highway design standards within the Leicestershire County Council’s “Highways Requirements for Development” are achieved.

Chapter 4 of the NPPF promotes sustainable transport. Paragraph 34 suggests that developments which generate significant vehicle movements should be located where the need to travel would be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes could be maximised and Paragraphs 37 and 38 recognise and promote the benefits of mixed used developments.

Given the scale of this proposal, it has been accompanied by a Transport Assessment. This has taken account of the following:- Existing conditions, accessibility, trip generation and distribution, sustainable modes of transport and vehicular impacts.

Taking into consideration the access proposals and the content of the Transport Statement, Leicestershire County Council (Highways) has confirmed that through reducing the speed limit along this section of the A447, in conjunction with the introduction of the new roundabout and frontage development, the proposal would be acceptable from highway safety and traffic flow perspective.

The secondary site access is from Cunnery Close is considered to be of an adequate standard to accommodate the development traffic.

In respect of sustainability LCC Highways consider that, whilst there are two existing bus services operating within the village, these are not within the recommended walking distance of the site. Accordingly an hourly, Monday – Saturday bus service would need to be provided within the site. The site is within walking distance of the existing Primary School and village centre. A footpath link would be required between the site and the existing footway on Bosworth Road, to provide access to the village centre and services.

Off-site Implications

Junctions around the site have been modelled and analysed within the Transport Assessment. Two remote junctions which will be adversely impacted upon by the proposal are: A447/Ashby Road double mini-roundabout in Ibstock and B582/Main Street/High Street mini-roundabout in Desford.

These junctions are both operating well over capacity; accordingly, longer term more significant improvements are required. To secure such, a contribution request of £30,000 per junction has been requested.

In respect of public transport, the following requests have been made:-

• Travel Packs; (can be supplied by LCC at £52.85 per pack). • 6 month bus passes, two per dwelling (can be supplied through LCC at £350.00 per pass • Contribution towards equipping new bus stop(s) within the site with Real Time Information (RTI) system. At a total of £5150. • New/increase in daytime bus frequency to every 60 minutes for a period of 5 years to route into the development serving new on site bus stop(s). At £135,000 per annum.

A Travel Plan and monitoring fee of £11,000 and a sum of £10,000 towards traffic monitoring and implementation of Traffic Regulation Order’s within the vicinity of Cunnery Close, Manor Way and Curtis Way have also been requested.

The Highway Authority is satisfied that a safe form of access can be provided to the site in accordance with Local Plan policies. Further, the residual cumulative impacts of the development can be mitigated and are not considered severe in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF, subject to the recommended conditions and infrastructure obligations outlined above.

Impacts upon Residential Amenity

Criterion (i) of Policy BE1 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that development does not adversely affect the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

In respect of criterion (i), as appearance, layout and scale are not for consideration at this time, impacts in terms of privacy, overshadowing and the development being of an overbearing form can not be comprehensively considered at this stage.

By virtue of its considerable scale however, the development would result in some impacts in terms of noise and disturbance, both from vehicle movements and the development itself. The dwellings most likely to be affected would be those on Cunnery Close, specifically those adjacent to the secondary point of access and to the sites northern boundary.

A Noise Impact Assessment accompanies the application. This assesses potential noise impacts from construction and traffic. The report been considered by Environmental Health (Pollution) and no objection, subject to conditions requiring mitigation have been received.

Infrastructure Obligations and Viability

The requirement for developer contributions must be considered alongside the guidance contained within the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (CIL). CIL confirms that where developer contributions are requested they need to be necessary, directly related and fairly reasonably related in scale and kind to the development proposed. The following requests have been received:-

Affordable Housing

In rural areas Policy 15 of the Core Strategy requires that 40% of the dwellings should be for affordable housing. Of these properties, 75% should be for social rent and 25% for intermediate tenure. The scheme proposes 450 dwellings resulting in a requirement for 180 of those proposed to be affordable.

There is demand in Barlestone for affordable properties such as it is considered that the delivery of 40% affordable housing in this rural area would help achieve the social needs of sustainability as supported by the NPPF.

Education

A contribution request has been made from the Local Education Authority based on Department for Education cost multipliers on a formula basis.

A Primary School contribution request of £529,851.49 has been made for Dove Bank Primary School.

A Secondary School contribution request of £1,343,394.10 has been made for The Market Bosworth School and Bosworth Academy.

A Post 16 sector contribution request of £190,379.82 has been made for Bosworth Academy.

Civic Amenity

A contribution request has been made from Leicestershire Shire County Council Environmental Services for £22,289 for enhancing the waste facilities at Barwell Civic Amenity Site including providing additional waste collection points and compaction equipment.

Library

A contribution request has been made by Leicestershire County Council Library Services for £26,950 for enhancing provision at Newbold Verdon Library.

Police Contribution

Leicestershire Police has provided detailed justification for a S106 request of £149,467 this would be broken down into the following:-

Start up equipment £15873 Vehicles £9846 Additional radio call capacity £945 PND additions £495 Additional call handling £1084 ANPR £6167 Mobile CCTV £1000 Additional premises £113157 Hub equipment £900 Total £149467

Health

A contribution request of £392,040 has been received from NHS England. This is to assist the delivery of a new surgery in Barlestone. The existing surgery is only able to deliver a very limited additional capacity and could not therefore deal with the significant population increase that would arise as a result of the development.

Play and Open Space

Policy 19 of the Core Strategy and Local Plan Policies REC2 and REC3 seek to deliver open space as part of residential schemes. Policies REC2 and REC3 are accompanied by the SPD on Play and Open Space and Green Space Strategy 2005-2010 & Audits of Provision 2007 (Update).

The indicative site plan illustrates that the development would provide the following play and open space facilities and green infrastructure:- Formal play space, comprising of an all – weather junior football pitch, an enhanced local equipped area of play, allotments and a sustainable urban drainage scheme, including balancing pond. Large areas of landscaping are also proposed.

As the layout at this stage is indicative and details including the design of the SUDS scheme and the specific sizes of play spaces have yet to be agreed. Contributions would be secured through the S106 Agreement if the applicant elects for the Borough Council or Parish Council to adopt any play and open space. Alternatively the applicant may wish to secure the maintenance of the play and open space through a management company.

Viability

The application has been accompanied by a viability statement. This seeks to illustrate that the scheme would not be viable based on the policy requirement of 40% affordable housing, with a tenure split of 75% social rented and 25% intermediate housing.

If the scheme is proven unviable, the developer contribution requests considered necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development could not be achieved. This would place additional strain on these services and infrastructure, which would further undermine the sustainability credentials of the scheme. This is a significant material consideration, due to the severity of the consequential impacts in respect of the social sustainability of the scheme, and weighs heavily in the overall planning balance if the scheme is not viable.

Drainage and Flood Risk

Policy NE14 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure the protection of surface waters and groundwater quality.

As the site area is over 1 hectare, a Flood Risk Assessment also accompanies the application. This states that the site falls within Flood Zone 1. By virtue of this classification, the site is considered acceptable for all types of development, including residential. It is acknowledged that by virtue of the development, areas of hard, impermeable surfacing would be increased, however, it is suggested that the associated surface water runoff would be managed by a sustainable urban drainage system. The report therefore concludes that the development would not result in increased flood risk and that the development is not compromised by surface water flows.

Environmental Health (Drainage), Severn Trent Water and the Environment Agency require conditions to secure drainage details, incorporating sustainable drainage principles for the site.

Accordingly, subject to the imposition of planning conditions, it is considered that the proposed works will be in accordance with Saved Policy NE14 of the Local Plan and overarching intentions of the NPPF.

Ecology

Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that the planning system should seek to minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains in biodiversity, continuing the government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity.

The application has been accompanied by a Phase 2 Habitat Survey. The content of this has been considered by Leicestershire County Council (Ecology). It has been commented that the survey did not note any habitats or species of more than local significance and have stated that the indicative masterplan illustrates a layout that would result in an opportunity for biodiversity to be enhanced as a result of the scheme.

Minerals

Chapter 13 of the NPPF, facilitating the sustainable use of minerals, identifies that minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and quality of life. Accordingly it is important to ensure there is a sufficient supply. Since minerals are a finite resource, it is important to make best use of them to secure their long term conservation.

When determining planning applications, Paragraph 144 of the NPPF suggests that great weight should be given to the benefits of the mineral extraction and that in mineral safeguarding areas, other development should not normally be permitted, where it might constrain potential future use for these purposes.

The site is situated within a mineral safeguarding area, due to the deposits of sand and gravel. Accordingly the applicant has submitted a Minerals Safeguarding Report. Leicestershire County Council (Minerals) has been consulted on the application and have no objection subject to conditions.

Agricultural Land

Although the application would result in the loss of agricultural land, in accordance with Paragraph 112 of the NPPF, the site does not comprise of the most versatile agricultural land and therefore this would not weigh against the scheme in this instance.

Other Matters

Queries have been raised in respect of foul sewage disposal. A condition, requiring such detail has been requested by Severn Trent Water This would ensure that there were satisfactory methods in place to cater for foul water disposal.

Concerns have been raised in respect of the developments potential impacts on the Osbaston conservation area. In response to this, whilst the development may be visible from this conservation area, a considerable separation distance would be retained. Accordingly it could not be argued that the proposal would have a material impact on the character of the area.

It has been suggested that the development would be against the Localism Act as it does not take into account the view of local communities. The Localism Act, promotes local community involvement in the planning process, both in plan making and decision taking. As the site in question does not constitute an allocated site, within the Site Allocations and Development Plan Polices DPD, the local community have not been involved in the process in respect of site selection. However, the local community has been consulted on this scheme and thus has had an opportunity to provide any views and concerns.

Concerns have been raised regarding pedestrian and emergency vehicle access within and around the site and in relation to the design of the proposed dwellings. As appearance and layout are not for determination at this stage, full details have not been provided. These matters would be subject for consideration at the reserved matters stage.

Conclusion

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that development which is sustainable should be approved without delay. Planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The proposal would result in benefits to the local environment through providing an opportunity to enhance ecology and increase biodiversity, would contribute towards social sustainability through the provision of additional homes, which would increase supply and choice for the local population and would contribute towards economic growth through the creation of construction related jobs and services and the allocation of land for employment uses.

Notwithstanding these benefits however, the scale of development proposed would result in significant and disproportionate amount of unsustainable growth for the settlements of Barlestone and Osbaston. This unprecedented volume of growth would have an adverse impact on the social sustainability of these settlements, which would be further augmented through the developer being unable to fund the requested infrastructure contributions.

Such growth would undermine the Development Plan Policies and Site Allocations DPD and would be contrary to the Council’s spatial vision and direction for growth, as outlined within the Core Strategy. Accordingly the proposal would be contrary to Policies 7 and 11 of the Core Strategy.

As a result of the excessive scale of the development proposed and the associated highway works, the scheme would result in an incongruous form of development that would have a detrimental impact on the character of the surrounding countryside and landscape. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy NE5 of the Local Plan and Paragraph 109 of the NPPF.

The NPPF encourages mixed used developments and recognises the associated benefits in terms of sustainability. In this case however, limited evidence has been provided to confirm that the mix and scale of uses proposed would be proportionate to cater for the scale of development proposed, as well as the existing population. Accordingly, it is concluded that this further justifies why the development would not be sustainable.

In accordance with Paragraph 7 of the NPPF, the economic, social and environmental aspects of the development have been assessed. The development is not considered to constitute sustainable development and the harm caused as a result of the proposal’s excessive scale and location, in terms of environmental and social impacts are considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The development is therefore considered contrary to the Council’s spatial vision as set out in the Core Strategy specifically in Policies 7 and 11, Policy NE5 of the Local Plan and Paragraphs 7, 14 and 109 of the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION:- Refuse planning permission

In dealing with the application, the local planning authority have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application.

Reasons:-

1 The development, by virtue of its scale and location would result in an incongruous and disproportionate amount of growth in an unsustainable location. The development would have a detrimental impact on the character of the countryside and surrounding landscape. The proposal would be contrary to the Council’s spatial vision and directions for growth. The development is therefore contrary to Policies 7 and 11 of the Core Strategy, Policy NE5 of the Local Plan and Paragraphs 7, 14 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Contact Officer:- Eleanor Overton Ext 5680

Item: 02

Reference: 12/00295/OUT

Applicant: C/o Agent

Location: Barwell Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) Land West Of Barwell Ashby Road Barwell

Proposal: Outline application includi ng access for up to 2,500 new residential dwellings (use class C3), an employment zone for general industrial buildings (use class B2) and storage and distribution warehouses (use class) B8) providing up to 24,800 sqm, sports pitches, pavilion building and changing rooms (use class D2), areas of formal and informal open space, children's play areas, landscaping, allotments and public realm works, provision of hydrological attenuation features, pedestrians and cyclists connections, new infrastructure and services as necessary to serve the development and a new community hub area comprising a primary school (use class D1), a local health care facility (use class D2) or, in the alternate, a family public house/restaurant (use class A3/A4) and local retail and commercial units (use class A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5) up to a maximum floor space of 1,000 sqm (EIA development)

Introduction:-

This report seeks approval from Planning Committee for a revised package of S106 infrastructure obligations for the Barwell Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) planning application. Members will recall that this application was previously presented to Planning Committee on 23 April 2013 where the Committee agreed with the officer recommendation and resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the prior completion of a S106 agreement and appropriate conditions.

The Committee approved the Heads of Terms for the S106 agreement and gave delegated powers to officers to finalise the completion of the agreement, including relevant triggers for payments to be made. The Committee also gave delegated authority to officers to agree the schedule of planning conditions. A copy of the April 2013 report is attached for reference. The April 2013 Committee resolution approved the principle of granting outline planning permission for the Barwell SUE. This decision reinforced the council’s strategic aspirations for the regeneration of Barwell and housing growth in the Borough up until 2026, as set out in in the Core Strategy (2009). This approach was further endorsed by the more recent adoption of the Earl Shilton and Barwell Area Action Plan. This key policy document was scrutinised through examination in the spring of 2014 and was adopted by the council as a Development Plan Document on 23 September 2014.

This report does not revisit the principle of development, which was established in April 2013. This report seeks approval for a revised package of S106 infrastructure obligations for the Barwell SUE in the light of information on the viability of the scheme, the adoption of the Earl Shilton and Barwell Area Action Plan, Police infrastructure obligations, viability and the impact of viability on the package of S106 infrastructure obligations. The context for this report remains that the scheme is critically important to the delivery of housing in the Borough and the maintenance of a five year supply of land for housing. These issues are all considered in detail in the appraisal below.

It is recommended that the Committee agree the following resolution:

1. The Chief Planning and Development Officer be granted delegated powers to finalise all matters associated with the completion of the S106 agreement and the range, scope and drafting of all planning conditions and issue outline planning permission;

2. That the issuing of outline planning permission be subject to the execution of an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 towards the provision of all planning obligations resolved to be approved in the report to Planning Committee dated 23 April 2013 (paragraph 47.1) relating to planning application ref. 12/00295/OUT for Barwell Sustainable Urban Extension, subject to the following amendments:

i) With regard to the Police contribution, that this figure be revised to £810,589 (to replace the £97,000 contribution agreed on 23 April 2013).

ii) With regard to the off-site affordable housing contribution, that this figure be revised to a phased payment of £5million, with a further phased payment of up to £5 million, (to replace the £12million contribution agreed on 23 April 2013) payable by way of a share of sales overage on sales revenues. The overage payment to be conditional on the sales revenues exceeding an average of £195 per square foot (index linked to BCIS, the RICS’ construction cost index).

Background

The Barwell SUE proposes up to 2,500 dwellings and 24,800 square metres of employment floor space with a range of associated facilities including open space, community uses and associated infrastructure. The full range of uses is set out in paragraph 2 of the April 2013 report (attached). No changes are proposed to the range or mix of uses from that resolved to be approved by Planning Committee in 2013. The only material change from the original resolution that was granted, relates to the package of S106 obligations.

The full schedule of S106 infrastructure obligations that was approved in April 2013 is set out in section 44 of the 2013 report (attached). This package was agreed following consultation with relevant infrastructure providers, the local community and the applicant. Planning Committee approved the Heads of Terms having regard to relevant planning policies and legislation. There was no suggestion or indication from the applicant at that time that the financial contributions being requested would affect the viability of the scheme.

For the 12-months following the 2013 Committee resolution, discussions took place with the applicant with the intention of agreeing the payment triggers and detailed clauses within the S106 agreement. In the spring of 2014, the Examination into the Earl Shilton and Barwell Area Action Plan took place. The viability of Barwell SUE was a matter that the Planning Inspector asked to be informed about. The applicant attended the Examination and confirmed their commitment to the delivery of the S106 infrastructure obligations as set out in the April 2013 report.

A summary of the agreed S106 infrastructure obligations is set out at Table 1, below. These measures were secured to mitigate against the impacts of the development on the local community and to provide the necessary infrastructure to meet the needs of the new residents.

Table 1 – Schedule of S106 Infrastructure Obligations Agreed in April 2013

Planning Obligation Value

Play and Open Space To be provided on-site. Maintenance contribution of approximately £4,174,560. Sports Pavilion £500,000 Education - Primary Provision Contribution to be based on a formula. Likely to be approximately £1,318,792 Education - Secondary Provision Contribution to be based on a formula. Likely to be £4,451,166 for high school and £1,431,702 for upper school. Sport and Leisure £90.76 per head of population Civic Amenities £47.05 per dwelling (approximately £117,625) Libraries Approximately £83,275 Health Care Facility to be provided either on site or off site. No figure stated. Community Facilities (off site) £185,500 Community Facilities (on site) Suitable facilities to be provided on site. No figure stated. Employment and Skills £300,000 Affordable Housing 10% of the total units to be provided on-site. A further 10% (equivalent) to be provided by a £12m financial contribution towards off-site provision. Police £97,000 Highways Value of highway works to be negotiated with Leicestershire County Council. No figure quoted at the time of the 2013 Committee. Public Realm £1,000,000

Viability

In the summer of 2014, the applicant advised officers that, having carried out a detailed analysis of the costs of carrying out the development, viability problems had been identified. The applicant told the council that their analysis had concluded that if the full package of S106 obligations, as endorsed by Planning Committee in 2013, were to be paid, the scheme would not be viable and could not be delivered. It was indicated at the time that up to £20million of infrastructure costs needed to be saved to allow the scheme to proceed.

In order to substantiate the viability claims, the applicant was asked to submit full financial viability appraisal. The council appointed expert independent consultants (DTZ, supported by construction cost specialists, Gardiner and Theobald) to scrutinise and challenge the submitted data, including the assumptions that had been made about the costs of carrying out the development.

The initial analysis of the applicant’s viability appraisal suggested that some additional costs would be incurred beyond those that could have been envisaged when the application was being considered in 2013. However, DTZ advised the council that the scheme could still afford most of the S106 package that was set out in the 2013 report. Further detailed discussions took place throughout the second half of 2014 until a position had been reached. The outcome of these negotiations is set out in detail below.

Endorsement is sought from Planning Committee for a reduced package of S106 infrastructure obligations for Barwell SUE. The report considers the planning implications of a reduced S106 package as part of weighing up the planning balance. The report also considers the additional information submitted by Leicestershire Police and whether that request is now considered compliant with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

Policies Relevant to the Consideration of the Planning Application

National Policy Guidance

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012 The National Planning Practice Guidance The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010, Part 11, Regulation 122

Local Plan 2006 – 2026: Core Strategy (2009) Policy 3: Development in Barwell Policy 5: Transport Infrastructure in the Sub-regional Centre Policy 15: Affordable Housing Policy 16: Housing Density, Mix and Design Policy 19: Green Space and Play Provision Policy 20: Green Infrastructure Policy 24: Sustainable Design and Technology

Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001 Policy IMP1: Contributions towards the Provision of Infrastructure and Facilities Policy BE1: Design and Siting of Development Policy BE5: The Setting of a Listed Building Policy BE13: Initial Assessment of Sites of Archaeological Interest and Potential Policy BE14: Archaeological Field Evaluation of Sites Policy BE26: Light Pollution Policy NE2: Pollution Policy NE5: Development in the Countryside Policy NE10: Local Landscape Improvement Area Policy NE12: Landscaping Schemes Policy NE13: The Effects of Development on Natural Watercourses Policy NE14: Protection of Surface Waters and Groundwater Quality Policy NE15: Protection of River Corridors Policy T5: Highway Design and Vehicles Parking Standards Policy T10: Secure Cycle Parking Facilities Policy T11: Traffic Impact Assessment Policy REC2: New Residential Development – Outdoor Open Space Provision for Formal Recreation Policy REC3: New Residential Development – Outdoor Play Space for Children Policy REC4: Proposals for Recreational Facilities

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents New Residential Development (SPG) Play and Open Space (SPD) Sustainable Design (SPD) Affordable Housing (SPD) Rural Needs (SPD)

Other Material Policy Guidance Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Review 2010

The SHLAA Review 2010 was published in April 2011 and the application site (AS590) was assessed through this process. The site was identified as suitable, available and achievable and, as a result, developable. Landscape Character Assessment July 2006

Earl Shilton and Barwell Area Action Plan Policy 1: Sustainable Urban Extensions Policy 2: Provision of Community Facilities Policy 3: Primary, Secondary and upper Education provision Policy 4: Provision of Indoor Sports and Leisure Facilities Policy 5 Waste Management Provision Policy 12: Barwell Urban Extension Policy 13: Housing in Barwell Urban Extension Policy 14: Employment in Barwell Urban Extension Policy 15: Neighbourhood Centre in Barwell Urban Extension Policy 16: General Highways Provision for Barwell Urban Extension Policy 17: Walking and Cycling in Barwell Urban Extension Policy 19: Regeneration of the District Centres

Appraisal

As the principle of the development has been agreed by Planning Committee in April 2013, this report seeks approval for a revised S106 package for Barwell SUE taking account of certain changes in circumstances. The Committee’s attention is drawn to the following matters:-

a) Infrastructure provisions of the Earl Shilton and Barwell Area Action Plan b) The Council’s supply of housing land c) Infrastructure obligations for Police d) Viability e) Impact of viability on the package of S106 infrastructure obligations a) Infrastructure provisions of the Earl Shilton and Barwell Area Action Plan

The April 2013 report to Planning Committee provides the policy context for the assessment of this planning application. It was resolved in 2013 that the application complied with development plan policies at that time. Since then, the Earl Shilton and Barwell Area Action Plan (AAP) has been adopted. This section of the report considers the application against the AAP, taking account of issues raised during the examination and the latest housing supply position. In all other respects, the policy context and conclusions set out in the 2013 report remain unaltered.

The Earl Shilton and Barwell Area Action Plan (AAP) was adopted in September 2014. The AAP is part of the development plan for the borough and sits under the Core Strategy. It provides a development framework for the delivery of both the Barwell and Earl Shilton Sustainable Urban Extensions. It contains relevant provisions on the delivery of infrastructure for each SUE.

Policy 1 of the AAP identifies the necessary on and off-site infrastructure to support the delivery of the Barwell SUE and the regeneration of the existing settlement centre.

Policy 12 of the AAP states that development of the SUE will generally be required to follow the land uses within the development framework and deviation will be permitted where proposals would not prejudice the achievement of the overall requirements of the policies of

25 the AAP. The delivery of the development framework is considered in the updated policy assessment under each matter discussed below.

Employment

The application complies with Policy 14, which seeks the delivery of a minimum of 6.2 ha of land for industrial and warehousing (B2 & B8) uses. The employment elements are secured via S106 agreement and no changes are proposed from that approved in 2013.

Education

In accordance with Policies 3 and 15, the application proposes a new primary school within the SUE Neighbourhood Centre. Policy 3 seeks contributions towards capacity improvements at existing local primary and secondary schools should this be required. The scheme will secure the required education provision through S106 agreement. The application is therefore in accordance with Policies 3 and 15 of the AAP.

Green Infrastructure

In 2013 the application was assessed against the green infrastructure proposed in the emerging AAP, informed by the AAP master planning process and landscape character assessment. Subject to the provisions set out in paragraph 31.4 of the April 2013 report, the application is compliant with Policy 20 of the Core Strategy and the development framework.

Neighbourhood Centre

Policy 15 seeks to secure the following uses within the Neighbourhood Centre:

• A new primary school; • Complimentary local convenience retail; • Community and recreational facilities (or S106 contributions); • Health facilities; • Facilities for policing the SUE or equivalent S106 contributions for provision elsewhere.

Other potential uses such as a public house and nursery provision are also encouraged.

The planning application resolved to be approved in 2013 included a new primary school and associated sports pitch; contributions towards delivery of a new local health care facility or delivery on-site if a facility cannot be delivered in the Barwell District Centre; community meeting and function rooms; and a public house if the health facility is not delivered on-site.

The scheme proposes up to 1000sqm retail, which is considered to meet the everyday convenience needs of the new community. This issue was considered during the examination of the AAP with respect to the additional wording to Policy 15 which states that the retail provision should complement and not detract from the Barwell District Centre. The Inspector, at the examination, acknowledged that whilst no floor space is specified in the policy, the total area for the centre is referred to in the supporting text of the AAP (2ha for the primary school and 1ha for the remaining neighbourhood centre), and this provides flexibility for negotiation on precise design criteria at the detailed planning application stage. The scheme includes local retail units of up to a maximum of 1,000sqm (0.1ha of the Neighbourhood Centre). This complies with that envisaged within Policy 15 of the AAP.

Community Facilities

Policy 15 requires a community facility within the Neighbourhood Centre. Policy 2 seeks a contribution towards the enhancement or increased provision of community facilities within the existing settlement centre. Opportunities for improvements to existing community facilities have been identified through a locally derived study referred to in the 2013 committee report (paragraph 37.2) and formed evidence to the AAP. Paragraph 4.22 of the AAP makes reference to the study, identifying which facilities could benefit from enhancements or accommodate increased capacity. The application makes provision for delivery of a community facility within the Neighbourhood Centre and developer contributions towards improvements to Jubilee Hall and Barwell Methodist Hall to encourage residents to use existing facilities within the Barwell District Centre. The scheme complies with Policies 2 and 15 of the AAP.

Health Facilities

Policy 15 of the AAP requires the provision of health facilities within the Barwell SUE Neighbourhood Centre if a location in or close to Barwell cannot be secured. The preferred option for the Barwell Health Centre is to find a new site within or close to Barwell District Centre that can serve both existing patients and future residents of the SUE. The SUE scheme enables reasonable endeavours to be placed on the owner within the S106 agreement to pursue an option for meeting the needs of SUE residents within Barwell District Centre. If this is not possible, there would be an obligation to construct a GP Surgery in an appropriate location within the SUE site. The scheme therefore complies with the requirement set out in Policy 15.

Police Infrastructure

During consideration of the planning application in 2013, there was a difference between the contribution sought by Leicestershire Police to fund a range of infrastructure items and the final contribution that was deemed compliant with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations. Based on the level of information submitted at the time, officers considered that only the developer contributions sought for the provision of neighbourhood policing facilities was compliant with CIL regulations. The facility that was approved as part of the 2013 resolution allows flexibility to either deliver an expanded facility at the George Ward Centre in Barwell, or if this is not appropriate, an additional facility in the SUE Neighbourhood Centre.

The contribution requested by Leicestershire Police was explored further by the Planning Inspector during the AAP examination. The Inspector recommended that a list of the community safety requirements of Leicestershire Police be included within the AAP’s infrastructure schedule, acknowledging that, at the time (April 2014), there remained an unresolved issue of compliance with the CIL regulations. Since consideration of the planning application in 2013, the Council has engaged constructively with Leicestershire Police and the Police has supplied further information to justify their request. This matter is considered further below.

Waste Management

Policy 5 seeks developer contributions towards enhancements and/or increasing capacity at the nearest civic amenity site equivalent to the need arising from the SUE. A contribution was supported by Planning Committee in 2013 based upon a formula agreed in conjunction with Leicestershire County Council as the waste disposal authority. The proposal conforms to Policy 5 of the AAP.

Indoor Sports Facilities

Policy 4 seeks developer contributions towards indoor sports and leisure facilities equivalent to the need generated by the SUE. During consideration of the planning application in 2013, an estimated contribution of between £461,185 and £635,850 was agreed depending upon the final mix of dwellings across the site. The proposal is in accordance with Policy 4.

Regeneration

A key objective of the AAP is to contribute towards the enhancement of the public realm and appearance of the District Centre of Barwell, providing more attractive places for users and investors contributing towards the successful regeneration of Barwell. Appendix 4 of the AAP provides a public realm strategy for the Barwell District Centre, identifying key existing issues, development opportunities and design principles for improvements to the public realm.

Policy 19 seeks contributions towards improvements to the public realm of Barwell. A public realm improvement scheme for the village centre was considered when the planning application was resolved to be approved in 2013. The indicative scheme proposes a number of key features identified in Appendix 4, Figure 2 of the AAP. A detailed scheme will need to be submitted and approved, in conjunction with Leicestershire County Council as the Highway Authority. It was envisaged in the April 2013 Committee report that the scheme would be completed prior to the occupation of any dwelling (paragraph 44.38). The village centre improvements would be delivered via a developer contribution of £1,000,000. This corresponds with the figure included within the infrastructure schedule of the AAP. The proposal is in accordance with Policy 19 of the AAP.

Highways and Access

To inform the preparation of the planning application and the AAP, the council has worked in conjunction with Leicestershire County Council as the Highway Authority and the applicant. This process has identified the package of highway improvement measures to the strategic highway network and local highway, a range of sustainable transport connections and improvements, including provision for accessible bus services.

The work undertaken in conjunction with the County Council underpinned the preparation of the Strategic Transport Assessment (STA) which in turn informed the preparation of the AAP. The STA identifies the package of measures and requirements within the development framework for Barwell. The highways measures are outlined in Policy 16 of the AAP and the key walking and cycling schemes to improve accessibility to and connectivity with the existing settlements are set out in Policy 17 of the AAP. The proposed package of measures is set out in full in the infrastructure schedule contained within the AAP. The purpose of the measures and supporting policies in the AAP and the modelling which underpins it is to provide baseline scenarios against which detailed development proposals through the phased development of the SUEs will be assessed.

Planning conditions were agreed in 2013 which require the submission of detailed highway, walking and cycling proposals in accordance with the agreed phasing programme.

Policies 16 and 17 state that the precise nature of local and strategic highway improvements and timings of delivery will be subject to negotiation. Subject to planning obligations and conditions, the various transport improvement measures are in accordance with Policies 16 and 17 of the AAP.

28 b) The Council’s supply of housing land

Paragraph 47 of the NPPF states that local authorities should identify and update, annually, a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements. They should also provide an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the Plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the Plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.

The Core Strategy identifies the council’s strategic approach for the distribution and delivery of housing land from 2006 to 2026, reflecting the need to secure the development of 9,000 new homes during this period. The Core Strategy identifies land to the west of Barwell as an appropriate location for the development of a Sustainable Urban Extension, which once fully built out will include 2,500 homes.

The Core Strategy Inspector’s Report recognises that there will be a shortfall in housing delivery against the annual average apportionment of 450 homes in the early years of the plan. However, the report recognises that these shortfalls can be made good in the years post 2017/18 when, at the time, it was envisaged that the major developments in the SUEs would come on stream fully.

Whilst the council presently has a 5-year supply of housing land, the on-going ability to maintain this supply relies on delivery within the strategic development sites identified within the Local Plan 2006 to 2026, including the Barwell SUE.

The council’s most recent housing trajectory estimates delivery of the first units at Barwell SUE during the monitoring period of 2018/19, with the highest annual delivery of 200 dwellings per annum being delivered from 2022/23. This issue was considered by the Inspector at the Examination of the AAP where it was recognised that a proportion of the delivery from the SUEs would be beyond the plan period which ends in 2026. However, the Barwell SUE remains a critically important element of meeting the 9,000 new homes required by the Core Strategy during the plan period 2006 to 2026.

Should the growth strategy to the west of Barwell fail to be delivered, then alternative locations would need to be secured to ensure the delivery of the remaining homes that are needed within the borough over the plan period 2006 to 2026. In circumstances where the council is unable to identify a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, then relevant policies for the supply of housing contained within the development plan should not be considered up-to-date in accordance with paragraph 49 of the NPPF. This would trigger the full provisions of paragraph 14 of the NPPF, with a requirement to grant permission for housing proposals unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, unless specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted.

The above considerations weigh heavily in favour of seeking to agree a package of infrastructure obligations that allows the S106 agreement to be finalised and the scheme to be implemented at the earliest opportunity. c) Infrastructure obligations for Police

Since consideration of the planning application in 2013, the borough council has worked in conjunction with Leicestershire Police in regard to the conformity of the requested infrastructure items to ensure they are Regulation 122 CIL compliant. Additional information has been provided by the Police to substantiate and justify the contributions requested.

£810,589 is sought to mitigate the additional impacts of the development. This compares with £837,875 that was requested in 2013. £97,000 of this figure was considered CIL compliant in 2013.

The £810,859 contribution would be split as follows:

• £94,064 for start-up equipment; • £54,700 for vehicles; • £5,250 for additional radio call capacity; • £2,750 for Police National Database additions; • £6,025 for additional call handling; • £16,444 for ANPR cameras; • £3,000 for mobile CCTV equipment; • £625,856 towards additional premises; • £2,500 towards hub equipment.

Recent decisions by the Secretary of State indicate the kind of obligations that are sought are capable of being CIL compliant. Against that background, the additional information submitted by the Police has been considered and it is agreed there will be a requirement for an increased S106 contribution compared with that agreed in 2013 in order to off-set the impacts of the development upon the Police service. The submitted information demonstrates that this contribution is necessary, is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development proposed and required for the prevention of crime and to create safer communities. d) Viability The NPPF advises that development should not be subject to a scale of obligations and policy burdens, that threatens their ability to be developed in a viable manner. It advises further that viability can be important where planning obligations or other costs are being introduced. Where the viability of a development is in question, the NPPF advises local planning authorities to look to be flexible in applying policy requirements wherever possible. The NPPG advises that a site is only viable if the value generated by its development exceeds the costs of developing it and also provides sufficient incentive for the land to come forward and the development to be undertaken.

As stated above, in the summer of 2014, the applicant submitted a viability appraisal to seek to demonstrate to the council that the full package of S106 contributions could not be afforded. It was claimed at that time that a reduction in up to £20 million would be necessary to allow the scheme to proceed. The council’s consultants (DTZ) have robustly assessed the information submitted in order to secure the maximum contribution possible for the council. This involved challenging the applicant’s assumptions about a range of development costs. DTZ has advised officers that while there remain differences between parties with regard to some of the cost assumptions that have been made, they are confident that most of the S106 infrastructure obligations that were envisaged in 2013 can still be afforded. It should be noted that this factors in the full £810,589 Police obligation referred to above.

In order to seek a resolution, a position has been reached to achieve an outcome that will allow the scheme to proceed without compromising the majority of the S106 infrastructure obligations that are important to the local community and the wider borough and vital to the council achieving its spatial vision. The negotiations have concluded that the scheme will result in a potential maximum £7 million reduction in financial S106 infrastructure obligations from those originally sought to mitigate against this position and as part of the negotiated

30 solution, it is agreed that a clause would be included in the S106 agreement to allow the council to recover up to an additional £5 million in sales overage payments. This would operate whereby if housing sales values increase above an agreed threshold, the council would recover a fixed proportion of the sales figure. This clause has the potential to lower the reduction in the infrastructure obligations from £7 million to £2 million. The final figure that could be recovered would be dependent upon future residential sales values. e) Impact of viability on package of S106 infrastructure obligations

Careful consideration has been given to how the reduction in the available financial payment should affect the overall package of S106 planning obligations. It is a matter for the council as the local planning authority, to decide how the available contribution should be apportioned across the various CIL compliant planning obligations.

Some of the obligations relate to substantial pieces of infrastructure, such as highway improvements and education facilities whereby it simply would not be practicable to part-fund these works and expect the remainder to be funded by other means if the full contribution was not paid. The same applies to the maintenance of play and open space where there would be no other practical means of maintaining these spaces, which would cause long- term problems for the local community.

Other obligations, such as those relating to Barwell public realm improvements, enhanced health care, sports pavilion and community facilities relate to smaller contributions, but the impact of not providing them could significantly affect the success of the scheme in terms of creating a sustainable community. Any reduction would dilute the quality of the scheme and affect both future occupiers as well as the existing community.

Whilst the Police contribution would be much higher than what was agreed in 2013, it is considered that community safety is important and having engaged further with the Police it is clear that without this contribution, there is the risk of longer-term infrastructure problems that could not be funded by other means. This could expose existing and future residents to future problems with crime and disorder. There are similar concerns in regard to the civic amenities, sports and libraries contributions where those contributions are relatively modest in comparison to the overall value of the package of infrastructure obligations. A reduction in those payments would put pressure on public services that would be difficult to fund by other means.

The provision of on-site affordable housing is a key requirement in both local and national planning policy terms and any reduction to the 10% secured in April 2013 has been firmly resisted. This obligation would allow local people who struggle to afford to purchase properties to have access to the new homes that will be constructed.

The off-site affordable housing contribution was to be £12 million when the application was resolved to be approved in 2013. It is proposed that the reduced contribution relates only to this off-site contribution. This will mean the following:

• The first £5 million as an unconditional payment, paid in tranches as the SUE progresses; • A further phased payment, of up to £5 million, is payable by way of a share of sales overage on sales revenues. This payment is conditional on the sales revenues exceeding and average of £195/sqft (index linked to BCIS, the RICS’ construction cost index).

The delivery of affordable housing is an important priority for the council and any reduction in the off-site contribution from the Barwell SUE application has the potential to undermine strategic affordable housing aspirations as set out in the Core Strategy. Policy 15 of the Core Strategy states that affordable housing requirements may be negotiated on a site by site basis taking into account identified local need, existing provision, characteristics of the site and viability. As it has been demonstrated that viability is a potential barrier to bringing forward the Barwell SUE, a reduced off-site affordable housing contribution does not conflict with Policy 15 in this instance.

If the council agreed in 2013 that the full 20% affordable housing would be provided on site, the SUE would have delivered approximately 500 affordable dwellings. This would have represented approximately 24% of the borough’s minimum requirement (2090 units) to the year 2026, as set out in Core Strategy Policy 15. The 2013 resolution was that 250 affordable units would be provided on site, with the remaining 250 units being provided in the form of an off-site contribution of £12 million.

If the off-site affordable housing contribution were to be reduced to £5 million, as proposed, this means that approximately 104 units would be funded this way. This could rise to 208 units if sales values realise sufficient revenue to trigger overage returns. Essentially, the reduced contribution would lessen the number of affordable units that the Barwell SUE would deliver by between 42 units (if sales trigger full overage) and 146 units (if sales do not trigger overage). 42 units represent 2% of the council’s overall affordable housing requirement to 2026. 146 units represent 7% of the council’s affordable housing requirement. It should be noted that the value of the contribution does not always realise the equivalent number of affordable units, but this gives a guide to the impact that this reduced contribution may have on delivery.

While the reduction in the off-site affordable housing contribution has the potential to be relatively modest (if sales values are high), this raises potential conflict with the NPPF that requires local authorities to provide a wide choice of housing to provide mixed and balanced communities. Approving the revised S106 package will bring forward significant numbers of market housing, in addition to employment and wider regeneration benefits for Barwell and the wider area. It is considered that the delivery of the SUE outweighs any potential shortfall in the affordable housing provision. Notwithstanding this, the following measures are being taken to address any shortfall in affordable housing provision:

1. The council is undertaking a development programme to increase the supply of affordable housing, by building new affordable housing including council housing in the borough. 2. Supporting planning applications for housing in appropriate sustainable locations, with an appropriate level of affordable housing. 3. Progressing the Community Infrastructure Levy, which will enable viability to be considered as part of setting the tariff which will make it harder for developers to put forward a case for reduced provision on allocated and speculative developments.

Conclusion

The April 2013 Planning Committee resolution has established the principle of granting planning permission for the Barwell Sustainable Urban Extension. This report seeks agreement to approve a revised package of S106 planning obligations.

Since the consideration of this planning application, the Earl Shilton and Barwell Area Action Plan has been adopted by the borough council. The updated policy context has been considered and the application is considered to be fully in accordance with the AAP.

The delivery of the Barwell SUE is critically important to securing the 9,000 new homes required across the whole of the borough over the plan period. Approval of the revised package of S106 planning obligations will ensure that the implementation of the council’s spatial vision remains on track.

The applicant has submitted evidence to demonstrate that there are viability issues with bringing forward the scheme. This information has been robustly assessed and negotiations have secured a relatively modest reduction in the contribution to reduce to £2 million if sales values exceed an agreed value or worse case scenario of £7 million (maximum).

The council will seek to actively mitigate this reduction by delivering affordable housing through other strategic planning applications and through the council undertaking a development programme to directly deliver affordable homes.

All other infrastructure requirements have been secured as per the original resolution and following further justification submitted by Leicestershire Police, it is considered that the full amount requested of £810,589 is now CIL compliant. This planning obligation will ensure that the development is as sustainable as possible from a community safety perspective.

It is considered that approval of the application subject to the revised package of S106 planning obligations is in accordance with the development plan and the NPPF.

Recommendation :

iii) With regard to the Police contribution, that this figure be revised to £810,589 (to replace the £97,000 contribution agreed on 23 April 2013).

iv) With regard to the off-site affordable housing contribution, that this figure be revised to a phased payment of £5million, with a further phased payment of up to £5 million, (to replace the £12million contribution agreed on 23 April 2013) payable by way of a share of sales overage on sales revenues. The overage payment to be conditional on the sales revenues exceeding and average of £195 per square foot (index linked to BCIS, the RICS’ construction cost index).

Contact Officer:- Nic Thomas Ext 5692

APPENDIX 1 – COMMITTEE REPORT 23 APRIL 2013

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This application is to be considered at Planning Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, as it is a major application.

1.2 This detailed report considers an application for the Sustainable Urban Extension on land west of Barwell. The report considers the proposed key elements of the development, along with supporting documentation. It sets out the range of consultation undertaken and reports on the representations received. It reviews the national and local planning policy context, within which this major growth proposal has been put forward. It reviews the key infrastructure elements, such as transport and highways, drainage and landscaping. The report highlights the key community facilities that will be provided to support the Sustainable Urban Extension, including, a neighbourhood centre, provision of school and educational facilities, sports and community pavilion facilities and enhancement of local neighbourhood policing.

1.3 A key feature of the application is the regeneration proposals for the centre of Barwell, including the potential for a new Doctors surgery, major public realm improvements, a new Town Centre public car park and the enhancement and improvement of existing community facilities.

1.4 The report sets out suggested conditions and proposed Heads of Terms requirements to secure the effective delivery of the development, along with the community infrastructure and regeneration elements.

2. APPLICATION PROPOSAL

2.1 The application was submitted to Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council on 10 th April 2012. The application seeks outline planning permission for a Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE). Detailed proposals are included for consideration at this time as regards the means of access to the development. The remaining matters of scale, appearance, layout and landscaping are reserved for later approval.

2.2 The application seeks outline planning permission for; • Demolition as necessary of any on site buildings or structures;

• Up to 2,500 new residential dwellings (Use Class C3);

• An employment zone for general industry (Use Class B2) and storage and distribution (Use Class B8) development providing up to 24,800 square metres;

• Sports pitches, pavilion building and changing rooms (Use Class D2) and associated car parking area;

• Areas of formal and informal open space, children’s play areas, landscaping, allotments and new areas of public realm;

• Provision of hydrological attenuation features and sustainable drainage systems; Pedestrian cyclist connections;

• New infrastructure and services as necessary to serve the development; and

2.3 A new community hub which shall provide: • A new primary school (Use Class D1) and associated sports pitch;

• A local health care facility (if required) (Use Class D1) or, in the alternative, a family public house/restaurant (Use Classes A3/A4); and

• Local retail and commercial units (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5) up to a maximum floorspace of 1,000square metres.

Proposed Land Use Area (ha) Residential 73.35 Community Hub (not 1.21 including Primary School) Primary School 2.1 Employment Area 6 Outdoor Sports Provision 7 Casual Informal Play 4.2 Space Other Areas of Play 0.9 Allotments 0.71 Existing Flood Plain 3.61 New Flood Attenuation 8.44 Natural Green Space 14.44 Hedgerows 1.8 Local Wildlife Sites 2.49 Spine Road Corridor 4.40 Total 130.66

2.4 A total of 26.56ha will be open space which comprises the following: i. Equipped Children’s Open Space (ECOP) – 0.9ha • 4 locally equipped areas of play (LEAP)

• 1 neighbourhood equipped area of play (NEAP)

• All within 400m walking distance

ii. Casual/Informal Play Space (C/IPS) – 4.20ha iii. Outdoor Sports Provision (OSP) – 7ha iv. Natural Open Space (NOS) – 14.46ha • Linear corridor along Tweed River

• East west and northwest

• Western and northern edges of site north of Stapleton Lane

• To rear of existing properties along Hinckley Road

• Linear corridor following Ashby Road to south of Stapleton Lane

2.5 The application has been subject to extensive pre-application discussion which has resulted in a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA). This has agreed a timetable for the submission and determination of the application following pre-application input from the major consultation bodies. The PPA has been modified to allow for a further extension of time to consider the outstanding matters. The agent also signed a project plan which sets out a timetable for determining the application in order to reach a committee meeting in March 2013. It is appreciated that the timeline for determining the application has slipped due to outstanding additional information relating to Environmental Impact Assessment requests being awaited from the developer which have now been received and considered.

2.6 The application has been subject to a scoping opinion under the Town and Country Planning Act (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. The application is classed as a Schedule 2, EIA Development and as such an EIA has been carried out and submitted as part of the application. This assesses the likely significant impacts of the proposed development during construction and operation of the development and proposes mitigation measures where required. The methodology and EIA is contained within the Environmental Statement (ES) and addendum document to the ES which has been submitted as part of the planning application.

3. SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

3.1 The site comprises 132.37 hectares and is located to the west of Barwell. The site is bound by the A447 Ashby Road on the western edge, residential properties along Hinckley Road to the south, White House Farm to the north and the existing settlement of Barwell to the east. Stapleton Lane splits the site and provides a direct vehicular route into the centre of Barwell. The south eastern boundary of the site is defined by Moat Way Industrial Estate which is occupied by a number of general industrial and distribution companies. Carousel Park (the showman’s park) does not form part of the application site and is located to the north of Stapleton Lane, accessed from Stapleton Lane.

3.2 The site is irregular is shape and comprises agricultural fields defined predominately by trees and hedgerows. There are no major built structures within the site. To the south of Stapleton Lane and adjacent to the eastern site boundary lies an area of lower marshy ground through which flows a watercourse in a northerly direction along the site boundary. This is culverted beneath the former tip and flows in a westerly direction beneath the A47 at Abrahams Bridge where it forms the River Tweed, a tributary to the River Trent. Development is not proposed on this land as it forms part of the natural flood plain.

3.3 The topography of the site is undulating and generally falls towards the River Tweed. An area of higher ground is located along a ridge to the north of Stapleton Lane. To the south of Stapleton Lane is a designated Local Wildlife Site known as “Little Fields Farm Meadow” which is to be protected and enhanced as part of the development proposals. Views of the site are relatively self contained from it and are assessed in the Environmental Statement.

3.4 The site contains a number of footpaths including the “Leicestershire Round” which predominately run east west linking Ashby Road to Barwell. These connections will be retained although some of them will need to be diverted. The site is also traversed by a number of utilities and services including a high pressure water main located in the north, electricity pylons and sewerage pipes which have all been taken account of in the detailed site analysis and have informed the scheme.

3.5 Barwell contains pockets of significant deprivation, particularly relating to income, education skills and training, employment and health and the centre is in need of regeneration. The most deprived part of the settlement falls within 10% of the most deprived neighbourhoods Nationally. The areas experiencing multiple deprivation are designated Local Strategic Partnership ‘priority neighbourhoods’ with targeted actions to improve these areas.

4. TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION

4.1 Indicative Masterplan A key component of this outline application is the indicative masterplan which illustrates how the different components of the development of this site would fit together.

4.2 The masterplan is supported by other parameters plan which include; • PPS3 Areas Plan which shows the residential areas

• Access and Movements Plan

• Land Use Plan

• Open Space Plan

• Building Heights Plan

• Density Plan

4.3 The application submission also includes a comprehensive suite of technical documents for consideration with the proposal. These include:-

4.4 Design and Access Statement sets out the design rationale and principles to realise the development vision. The document provides a tiered structure of information that begins with a broad introduction to the development proposals and is progressively more detailed and technical, whilst explaining and justifying the design rationale and proposals. The document sets out design standards that will establish; • A framework for the development which promotes a high quality design;

• An approach to phased development that ensure co-ordinated and coherent development; and

• Clear standards and criteria to evaluate and assess detailed applications, supporting the development control process, ensuring a high quality and coordinated design as well as a clear brief for designers and others involved in the development process.

4.5 Planning Statement sets out the policy background which has led to the development of the masterplan. Further sections detail the development framework, the scope of the Environmental Statement and sets out details of pre-application community involvement.

4.6 Statement of Community Involvement sets out details of the pre-application discussion with various bodies, the key steps were:- i. Significant pre-application discussions with Officers at HBBC and other key consultees relevant to the future determination of the application.

ii. Informal presentations to HBBC Executive Committee, Scrutiny Committee and Barwell and Earl Shilton Forward Group.

iii. Letters to key Members, including Ward Councillors, Members of Planning Committee, Cabinet Members and Group Leaders and key stakeholders to advise them of the scheme and inviting them to view the proposals at a public exhibition preview.

iv. Organisation of a widely advertised public exhibition (held 13 th and 14 th January 2012) to provide local residents and businesses with the opportunity to view and comment on the draft development proposals. Over 4000 colour leaflets were delivered to local residents and the business community in the surrounding area inviting them to the exhibition.

v. The hosting of all exhibition material online, including a feedback mechanism on the HOW Planning website.

4.7 The exhibition was attended by approximately 910 people (approximately 23% of those notified directly by leaflet). The online consultation webpage was viewed a total of 636 times. This equates to 518 individual computers, which suggests that 28% of those viewing the proposals viewed them more than once. 5 completed comment forms were obtained at the end of the stakeholder preview events and 177 completed forms were obtained at the end of the exhibition. In addition, 12 comment forms were received by post, 16 people submitted their comments online and 10 emails were received. A total of 220 comments were received overall.

4.8 Environmental Statement considers the likely significant environmental impacts arising from the development. The statement includes chapters on; • Landscape and visual affects;

• Ecology and nature conservation;

• Archaeology and heritage;

• Geology and land contamination;

• Drainage and flood risk;

• Transport and access;

• Air quality and dust;

• Noise and vibration; and

• Waste Management Plan.

A Non-technical summary of the Environmental Statement has also been submitted.

4.9 Landscape and Visual Assessment A full landscape character and visual impact assessment of the Barwell SUE has been carried out which provides an assessment of the effects of the proposal during construction and during the early operational life of the scheme (assumed to be the first 15 years following completion). The assessment confirms a number of key concluding issues:- • In terms of sensitivity of the landscape character, the ‘receiving environment’ affected by these proposals is not a designated landscape.

• The Stoke Golding Vales Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) concludes that the site has ‘high’ sensitivity and that it is ‘distinctly rural and tranquil’. However much of this LCA does not account for the urban influence of Barwell on the land immediately adjacent to it. In consideration of this, the results of the assessment concludes that it is of medium sensitivity.

• Due to the limited visual envelope of the site and the extent to which existing vegetation reduces the sense of openness within it, the physical size of the area which will experience change to its character and visual amenity is very small.

• The extent of existing perimeter vegetation retained throughout the scheme will continue to mature during construction phases of development, thereby contributing to substantial limiting effects on the visual amenity and character of the site.

4.10 Arboricultural Assessment A total of 174 individual trees, 59 groups of trees and 63 hedgerows, totalling 2976 items have been recorded in the survey. 40 trees/hedgerows will be lost as a direct consequence of the proposals. Of these 40 trees 3 are classed as Category A (category A are those of high quality and value) and 22 are classed as Category B (category B are those of moderate quality and value). A further 15 should be removed for reasons of sound arboricultural management. The losses associated with the proposal are offset by a range of benefits which result from the re-development of the site, these being; • The implementation of necessary pruning to secure good tree form and health; and

• New tree planting of appropriate, locally indigenous species in certain areas to diversify the age-class distribution on site.

4.11 Ecology and Nature Conservation An extended phase 1 habitat survey has been carried out which includes the following; a breeding bird survey, a hobby survey, a bat survey, a tree assessment, an inspection of buildings, a badger survey, a water vole survey, a reptile survey and a great crested newts survey. A number of recommendations are suggested within the report.

4.12 Archaeological Assessment The geophysical survey confirmed the low to moderate archaeological potential of the site which had been suggested by the limited known archaeological resource identified by the archaeological assessment undertaken prior to the survey. The evaluation recovered no significant evidence of pre-historic activity. It is likely that the vast majority of the site is of low archaeological potential and has been subject to agricultural exploitation from at least the Middle Ages.

4.13 Heritage Assessment has been carried out to determine the potential for the proposed development to adversely affect the setting of designated built and archaeological assets. 58 designated assets were assessed. With the exception of Barwell House, all other assets were predicted to have no or slight change. The impact of the development upon Barwell House is assessed in detail within the Archaeological Assessment section of the report. Whilst careful consideration of its setting will need to be built into the development, the report concludes that it does not represent an in principle constraint stating that ‘There is no reason to believe that appropriate measures cannot be incorporated within the proposed development to ensure that the wider setting of this building is preserved or enhanced as required.’

4.14 A Ground Stability and Phase1 Ground Condition Assessment (Contamination) has been carried out to assess the potential hazards and constraints posed by existing ground conditions and past land use activities.

4.15 The Ground Stability and Phase1 Ground Condition report includes a section on Mineral Reserve Related Impacts . This states that the potential existing mineral reserves identified within the application site are of limited extent and have not been identified in the Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework or Mineral Site Allocations Development Plan Documents, as a Preferred Options Site for Sand and Gravel extraction. Due to the isolated nature, small quantities and relative abundance of the minerals available, it is considered that the extraction of minerals from the site would not be viable.

4.16 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) advises that the principal watercourse in the area is the River Tweed which drains a catchment of approximately 4km to the western boundary (Abraham’s Bridge). A tributary of the River Tweed enters the site on the eastern boundary a short distance downstream of Stapleton Lane and appears to be fed by an outfall from a surface water balancing pond and run-off from a small area of field. A further watercourse, a tributary of the Thurlaston Brook, rises on the northern boundary of the site. The modelling analysis has shown that the vast majority of the site lies outside the 1,000 year floodplain of the River Tweed and its tributary. The most notable areas of floodplain are generally associated with Abraham’s Bridge and the culvert beneath the former landfill, both of which serve to restrict flood flows, thereby raising flood levels along the reach upstream. The FRA advises that such matters can be adequately mitigated through the application of ‘best practice’ design principles at detailed design stage.

4.17 Transport Assessment (TA) was prepared in advance of the Leicester and Leicestershire Integrated Transport Model (LLITM) and consequently an alternative manual method was adopted to assess the transport impacts of the development. The TA states that the development of the site meets the key objectives which demonstrate consistency with national and local planning and transportation policy. This is shown through the provision of; enhancements to local public transport and improved connections to Hinckley Rail Station, improvements to the local highway network, high quality walking and cycling facilities to encourage and enable sustainable travel, and the introduction of formal traffic control at Barwell Village Centre.

4.18 Framework Travel Plan forms the first part of the Travel Plan for the development which will set out ways in which the scheme and its occupiers can reduce the number of vehicle trips by promoting more sustainable travel options. It provides a mechanism for the delivery of measures which will be secured through the planning agreement, in the form of promoting walking, cycling, use of new and existing bus services, car sharing and other smarter travel choices.

4.19 Air Quality Assessment considers that the site is acceptable for residential use and that air quality does not provide any constraints to the proposed development and concentrations of nitrogen dioxide are predicted to be below the objectives or limit values at all existing and proposed receptors. During construction it will be necessary to apply a package of measures to minimise the potential for dust annoyance however the overall impact of the development is judged to be negligible.

4.20 Noise Assessment considers the potential noise and vibration effects of the proposed development. The noise model demonstrates that the majority of the

proposed dwellings fall within a category suitable for residential development provided mitigation is provided to meet internal noise levels. No other mitigation measures are required in the development. Conditions are recommended to limit noise from plant in relation to employment uses.

4.21 Preliminary Site Waste Management Plan has been submitted which sets out guidance for identification of waste streams; potential options for reuse and recycling of waste; duty of care of contractors; site and materials management; and a system for regular waste performance monitoring and reviews for all projects.

4.22 Affordable Housing Statement The requirement of 20% affordable housing will be met by an on site provision and/or an off site provision by way of a commuted sum. Details are to be agreed with the Council.

4.23 Sustainability Assessment is based on integrating sustainability into the development from the outset as a key driver for the development as a whole. The applicants have decided not to use BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) and CfSH (Code for Sustainable Homes) scores to dictate the sustainability strategy for the development or as a proxy for delivering high quality sustainable development. This is because these mechanisms would limit the possibilities for achieving a more comprehensive sustainability outcome across the wide front of social, economic and environmental issues. As a result, the applicants are using Equilibrium approach to provide the means to capture, monitor and assess the sustainability outcomes from this development. This analysis confirms that the major focus in terms of sustainability is on economic and social sustainability, with environment, climate change and transport also key areas. Key highlights from this approach to sustainability are:

Social • High quality communal spaces and public realm elements will create a sense of space, will attract people into the development and thus enable the local community to knit together;

• Providing the opportunity to move focus away from the car will create a safe, walkable environment with integrated open space to promote healthy, community living;

• Community facilities (e.g. new school, health centre, sports facilities) will bring people together as well as its surrounding areas.

Economic • The creation of jobs and employment legacy and therefore local wealth is a focus;

• By maximising the opportunities for jobs and employment legacy across the constriction and post construction phases these benefits will be maximised;

• By taking an innovative approach to the masterplan design and building specification, the use of natural light, airflow etc will reduce the need for heating and/or cooling.

Environmental • Biodiversity will be enhanced using approaches to both enhance existing and create new habitats;

• Through the approach to transportation on the site, a shift away from the car will be encouraged leading to benefits in terms of air quality, noise and carbon emissions;

• The use of SUDS will contribute to improving local river quality.

4.24 Energy Statement recognises that emerging legislation and policy is seeking to improve building energy efficiency through the enhancements to the National Building Regulations, CfSH and BREEAM assessment for commercial buildings. The spatial layout, plot design and building design will account for the majority of carbon emissions reduction. The addition of micro generation technology will allow further carbon emission reductions over these figures. Given the current rate of change in this area, the Energy Statement states it is right that the exact approach and technology mix is selected at a more appropriate point in the development process.

5. SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND AMENDMENTS

5.1 Additional information (second phase of consultation) was submitted on 27 November 2012 by the applicants further to the Council’s request dated 27 September 2012 in accordance with Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) 2011.

5.2 The Addendum to the Environmental Statement includes:- • A review of the ecological implications of the revised green infrastructure proposals which were developed in consultation with Leicestershire County Council.

5.3 In addition to the Addendum Environmental Statement the following information has been submitted to the Council: i. Addendum Supporting Planning statement to address publication of the National Planning Policy Framework

ii. Addendum Design and Access Statement (Section 08, Landscape and Green Infrastructure)

iii. Updated parameter plans and scheme masterplan drawing

5.4 A further Addendum (third phase of consultation) to the Environmental Statement was submitted on 1 February 2013 by the applicants further to the Council’s request dated 31 January 2013 in accordance with Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) 2011.

5.5 The Addendum to the Environmental Statement includes:- • An assessment of the impacts of the proposed development upon mineral reserves following further investigation

• An update to the Transport Assessment including: framework travel plan and updated highways drawings

5.6 Other information which has been submitted includes:

• Updated vehicular site access drawings

5.7 Further highway information (fourth phase of consultation) was submitted on 1 March 2013 by the applicants further to the Council’s request dated 31 January 2013 in accordance with Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) 2011.

5.8 3 additional highway drawings were submitted:- • 25287/012/010A – Strategic Road Network – A5 Potential Highway Improvements AAP

• 25287/012/011A – STA Barwell West Strategic Road Network – A5 Potential Highway Improvements

• 25287/012/012A – Strategic Road Network – A5/A47

5.9 Further highway information (fifth phase of consultation) was submitted on 28 March by the applicants updating the relevant highway drawings. The following drawings were submitted:

25287-012-001 F, 25287-012-002 C, 25287-012-003 C, 25287-003-SK08, 25287- 012- 004 D, 25287-012-006 B, 25287-012-007 A, 25287-012-008 A, 25287-012-009 A, 25287-012-011 B, 25287-012-013 and 25287-012-014

6. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

6.1 88/00915/4 Outline application for Approved 23.08.1988 residential development

6.2 12/00219/OUT Erection of 2 No. dwellings Approved Pending decision

7. CONSULTATIONS

7.1 Formal consultation on the application proposal has been carried out as detailed below. It is also important to highlight the consultation which has been carried out on the emerging Area Action Plan (AAP) for Barwell and Earl Shilton. The details of this consultation are contained within Appendix 2 of this report and highlight that initial public consultation on the issues papers relating to the AAP began in November 2003 and have continued until the submission of the application.

7.2 Monthly meetings have taken place with Barwell and Earl Shilton Scrutiny Group and HBBC officers. The Scrutiny Group have been kept up to date with progress on the Barwell SUE application and have heard presentations by Leicestershire County Council Highways and Severn Trent. The Working Group will report their findings on the process and lessons learnt to Scrutiny Commission.

8. FIRST PHASE OF CONSULTATION ON THE APPLICATION

The following consultations were submitted as a result of the first phase of consultation:

8.1 Highways Agency directs that planning permission not be granted for 3 months. Insufficient information has been provided in support of the planning application to

ensure that the A5 Trunk Road continues to serve its purpose as part of a national system of routes for through traffic in accordance with Section 10 (2) of the Highways Act 1980 by minimising disruption on the trunk road resulting from vehicles entering and exiting the application site, in the interests of road safety.

8.2 The Directorate of Chief Executive, LCC (Ecology ) wants to ensure that the full extent of the Local Wildlife Site is recognised, protected and conserved. Maintain an objection until this has been addressed.

8.3 Environment Agency advise that the development will only meet the requirements of NPPF if the measures as detailed in the EIA and Flood Risk Assessment submitted with this application are implemented and secured by way of conditions

8.4 English Heritage considers that amendments to the masterplan restrict employment to the north east of Barwell house and proposes residential use directly to the north of this asset which is an improvement to the AAP proposals, subject to detailed design considerations being taken into account at full planning application stage. Also note, however, that the revised proposals now reduce the depth of the landscape buffer zone and level of new screening. This should be carefully considered in relation to the impact of this on the setting of the listed building. In order to address these issues, advise that consult with HBBC Conservation Officer. Advised that conditions should be attached to ensure the retention of historic hedgerows and extant ridge and furrow earthworks as well as mitigation by design of the setting of Barwell House. Conditions should also be attached regarding further archaeological investigation and recording.

8.5 The Primary Care Trust requests a contribution of £1,778,400 towards the provision of health care facilities for the additional patients to be accommodated from the development.

8.6 Sport England (SE) request a significant contribution towards sports facilities. The SE indicates that a population increase of 6000 in Barwell will generate a demand for 0.30 of a pool, 0.45 of a sports hall, 0.17 of an artificial grass pitch and 0.08 of an indoor bowls centre. The absence of an objection is on the understanding that any forthcoming planning permission will secure the following points by way of legal agreement or condition. If any of the points will not be secured then Sport England would wish to further consider the need to raise an objection to the application:-

a. Appropriate provision and/or financial contribution(s) towards outdoor and/or indoor sporting provision;

b. That all sporting provision will be designed and constructed in accordance with the design guidance of Sport England and the relevant National Governing Bodies of Sport;

c. That where required (e.g. for playing field land) a detailed assessment of ground conditions of the land proposed for sporting use shall be undertaken to identify constraints which could affect the quality of the sporting provision;

d. The appropriate phasing of the development to ensure the timely delivery of the proposed sporting provisions;

e. The long term management and maintenance of all sporting provision.

8.7 Natural England has no objection to the development however comment on protected species and Local Wildlife Site. Suggest appropriate conditions to be attached to the permission.

8.8 Severn Trent has no objection to the application subject to imposition of conditions regarding surface water and foul water drainage. 8.9 Wildlife Trust has no objection to the application however raise a number of questions which need to be answered.

8.10 Homes and Communities Agency advises that the Design and Access Statement is well written, well structured, graphically clear and provides a comprehensive amount of information. The key issue for the Council is ensuring that the quality of development proposed is what gets built.

8.11 The Directorate of Chief Executive, LCC (Minerals and Policy ) advises that the site lies within the Mineral Consultation Area because of the potential presence of valuable deposits of sand and gravel. The applicant needs to provide further information on the quality and extent of the mineral resource and or a more reasoned explanation as to why it believes the extraction of that resource is not viable. In particular the application needs to explain how the requirements of policy MDC8 of the Leicestershire Mineral Core Strategy and Development Control Polices DPD have been met. It is considered that without this further information the presumption must be that the development could result in sterilisation of valuable mineral resource and the ES is therefore incorrect in assigning a minor adverse impact in respect of mineral sterilisation.

8.12 The Head of Community Services HBBC (Drainage) states that the development will increase threefold the urbanised area of Barwell draining to the Tweed River. It is therefore of greatest importance that sustainable drainage systems, installed to manage surface water runoff are designed to mimic the discharge characteristics of the un-developed site. Advise that conditions be attached regarding sustainable urban drainage principles.

8.13 The Head of Community Services HBBC (Affordable Housing ) advises that over the last three years, from 1.04.2009 to 31.01.2012, there have been a total of 145 vacancies in Council owned properties. Of these, 58 vacancies were for houses, 62 for flats, 10 bungalows and 15 warden assisted accommodation. Therefore, although there are more houses than flats in Barwell, turnover of houses is much lower and therefore a mix of different types of accommodation would be welcome, the request to prioritise family housing, particularly 2 bed roomed houses for social rent.

8.14 The Head of Community Services HBBC (Pollution) states that conditions should be attached regarding construction, land contamination, air quality, noise, light and ventilation.

8.15 Head of Corporate and Scrutiny Services HBBC (Green Spaces) advises that management plans need to be produced for the areas of natural and semi natural green spaces, the connectively through the existing Barwell Park needs to be improved, design of NEAPS and LEAPS should be overlooked by adjacent housing to ensure the play spaces are safe for children to use, attenuation should be designed to meet ROSPA’s safety at inland waterways guidance, the provision of allotments is welcomed, discussions should be held with local football clubs to determine demand, times and level of use and dual use of open space school facilities need to be clarified.

8.16 Head of Development Control Services at North Warwickshire Borough Council has no objection but requests that the Highway Agency be consulted because of the recognised capacity issues on the A5.

8.17 Police Architectural Liaison Officer raises an objection to the application as no consideration has been given to Policing. The development will significantly impact the delivery of Policing in the District and will be unsustainable if this is not appropriately mitigated. The development could be carried out without Police infrastructure but it would nevertheless be unacceptable and permission should not be granted. A total contribution of £837,875 is required. Issues are also raised with regard to urban design and how the site could be potentially laid out.

8.18 As a result of the Developer Contributions consultation, Leicestershire County Council has the following comments:-

a) Director of Children and Young Peoples Services (Education) states that the development would provide a pupil yield of 600 primary places which would require a site of 1.93hectares and the construction of a 1x new primary school 1x 2FE (420 places). This would leave a remaining pupil yield from the proposed development to 180 places. These places have been netted off against the current primary provision within Barwell and leaves a deficit of 109 places from the proposed development that cannot be accommodated. The remaining 109 primary places amount of £1,318,792 and is calculated using the Department of Education cost multiplier which is currently £12,099.01 per primary place. With regards to Secondary Provision, Heathfield High School and William Bradford CC are the in-catchment schools for the Barwell development. There is also a second SUE development proposed for Earl Shilton of 1600 dwellings of which the secondary aged pupils generated from the proposed development will also be in-catchment to Heathfield High School and William Bradford CC. There is not sufficient surplus capacity to meet all of the generated places of both developments at the nearest high and upper school. To ensure that both proposed developments contribute towards the provision of secondary pupil places the deficit has been split as a percentage against the total number of dwellings proposed. This would amount to £4,451,166 for Barwell

b) Director of Environment and Transport (Civic Amenity) states that the development would generate additional civic amenity waste at the Barwell Civic Amenity site a contribution of £117,625 is sought

c) Director of Adults and Communities (Libraries) in respect of additional users of the existing library facilities at Barwell Library on Malt Mill Bank a contribution of £135,870 is sought

d) Chief Executive (Ecology) does not request any financial contributions.

8.19 Peckleton Parish Council object to the development on the following grounds: a) Consultation - Do not consider that the village of Stapleton was properly consulted and therefore have been unable to have any influence over the design aspects of the application. Residents were unaware that boundary of the SUE had changed and moved closer to the village boundary.

b) Segregation of settlements - Stapleton is in danger of losing its individual identity as a small rural village surrounded by agricultural land. The current plans show only two small fields separating Barwell and Stapleton. Stapleton will be dwarfed by the development

c) Traffic - Access to the estate is via the A447 or Stapleton Lane consequently the A447 will bear the burden of the additional traffic generated. Impossible for two HGV’s to pass each other at the corner of the Nags Head without one vehicle mounting the pavement. HGC traffic is forecast to increase both during construction and once the industrial units are built. There is no undeveloped land to enable this corner to be improved. Contest assumptions made regarding the use of public transport, bicycles and likely work locations which assume that the majority of traffic will use the A47. In order to avoid congestion when joining the A5, local car commuters use Dadlington Lane, a single track road. It is unsuitable to take additional traffic. Suggest a bypass for Stapleton

d) Safety – Despite a 30mph speed restriction through the village it is regularly exceeded and traffic accidents occur.

e) Loss of peaceful enjoyment of their property – Many Stapleton residents, particularly those directly adjacent to the A447, have strong concerns that the proposed development and its associated traffic will have a severe negative effect on their quality of life. The additional traffic will undoubtedly generate noise, dust and air pollution in excess of current levels.

f) Loss of agricultural land and its associated amenity value – We object to the loss of good agricultural land together with its associated wildlife and the footpath network. Whilst the footpaths will be retained within the development they will no longer cross open fields reducing the enjoyment of being able to engage with the local countryside and nature. Alternative Brownfield sites within the Borough should be considered for this development either in whole or in part.

g) Light pollution – Due to the location Stapleton currently experiences only low levels of light pollution. The proposed development will have a negative impact on this particularly as the community hub will be 4 storeys and clearly visible.

h) Screening of development - The application shows tree screening and/or large area of green space to all boundaries of the proposed development with the exception of the western boundary along the A447 and part of the development north of Stapleton Lane. There will be significant visual impact on Stapleton arising from the development. The existing hedgerow along the A447 is of an inadequate height to shield the views of the development, particularly the community hub and the school.

A further letter was received by Peckleton Parish Council further outlining the lack of consultation that has taken place with residents of Stapleton.

8.20 Stoke Golding Parish Council have raised the following comments on the application:- There are major concerns relating to creation of a significant increase in vehicles in local area. The majority of these will be commuting to locations away from Barwell. The computer generated model does not appear to recognise rural unclassified roads that already constitute a significant ‘rat run’ network used by commuting traffic in the area. The increasing use of rat runs has been identified. Resulting from this, speed humps have been built at Wykin Village, Higham had a home zone scheme and Stoke Golding spent nearly £3,000 on speed diction signs as did Sutton Cheney PC. Suggest a number of measures to limit speed through Stoke Golding.

8.21 Sapcote Parish Council object to the development on the grounds that it would generate an unacceptable level of traffic on roads which are unsuitable. The level of

traffic generated would have a significant adverse affect on surrounding villages, including Sapcote, which has difficultly in dealing with its existing traffic.

9. REPRESENTATIONS FROM FIRST PHASE OF CONSULTATION APRIL 2012

9.1 The first round of public consultation following the submission of the planning application took place on 13 April 2012. Over 800 neighbour notification letters were sent to properties within Barwell. 20 site notices were displayed on and adjacent to the application site (including within Stapleton) and press notice was published in the Hinckley Times on 19 April 2012.

The following representations were received during this phase of consultation.

9.2 A standard letter of objection has been received signed by 389 people and raises the following issues: a. There has been no meaningful consultation of the people of Barwell and Stapleton in relation to these Borough Council driven plans;

b. Bringing huge volumes of extra vehicle movements generated by 2,500 houses into the centre of Barwell is not achievable and certainly not desirable and there are unaddressed concerns about the increased traffic on the dangerous A447 through Stapleton. The road system cannot cope at the moment and there is very limited capacity for any improvement. The infrastructure simply does not exist to make these plans sustainable and all the indications are that there is little in the proposals to address such vital issues.

c. There is a woeful lack of real evidence indicating that the proposed Sustainable Urban Extension would actually be in any way ‘sustainable’. How can the Borough Council proceed with this policy on such a flimsy evidence base?

d. The SUE will destroy the individual characters of Barwell and Stapleton villages by joining them together. The 2,000 new homes planned as part of the Earl Shilton SUE will only add to the loss of community identity by creating a huge new conurbation.

e. Proposals for improvements in the centre of Barwell are vague to say the least and there is much scepticism about if and when they will be delivered. Overall the disadvantages of the proposed huge expansion of Barwell far outweigh any alleged benefits.

f. There is no need for these houses in Barwell – indeed the Borough Council’s own Site Allocations document of February 2009 identified a requirement for only 44 new homes.

g. The building of 2,500 houses on green fields should not be allowed, particularly whilst there are so many Brownfield sites in Barwell that could be redeveloped. This would have the double advantage of genuinely aiding the regeneration of the village.

h. Barwell residents are seeking a referendum on the subject of the SUE and the Borough Council should hold back from pursuing this policy until local people have had their say.

9.3 357 individual representations were received objecting to the application on the following grounds:

9.4 Principle of development a. Barwell doesn’t need to be a super town, just continue with some cosmetic improvements in new ‘conservation area’

b. In this age of conservation and carbon neutral projects, surely the destruction of such a large green area contravenes any ‘green’ policy that the council has. There are many brown areas sites that could be built on without losing and hurting the local flora and fauna.

c. If you want to do any form of development it should be for children and families, cinemas, bowling facilities etc, something to keep the kids entertained and off the streets.

d. The Government’s National Planning Policy Framework aims to ensure that local communities have a more powerful role in determining the shape, location and scale of development in their areas. The Borough Council and Parish Council must therefore take note of the growing local opposition to Barwell West and the profoundly negative impact it would have on the village of Stapleton. Whilst accepting the need for new housing, there should be consideration to alternative locations.

e. Following the recent announcement regarding the ‘Government’s flagship Housing Strategy’ the Barwell West SUE should be refused until a full and thorough investigation is carried out to investigate the possibility of the release of brown field sites for new house building within the Boroughs boarders as indicated by Housing Minister Mr Shapps.

f. The proposal is not sustainable and there is no established need for the volume of houses. This development is a new village but is being parked next to the existing village of Barwell which is contrary to the council concept of a green wedge to protect the distinct identity of existing communities.

g. The location is too far from major roads and motorways leading to the employment areas of Nuneaton, Coventry, Birmingham and Leicester.

h. HBBC should promote the development and diversification of agriculture land.

i. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, HBBC should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality, safeguarding the long term potential of best and most versatile agricultural land and conserving all soil resources.

j. The road system should dictate where additional houses and employment on this scale should be located as they need direct access to the major road system. There are more suitable sites adjacent to Normandy Way and Clickers Way and also adjacent A5.

k. Sad to see the loss of so many acres of excellent grazing land which has been preserved for hundreds of years for milk producing farms along the side of A447 and now to be ruined by building.

9.5 Scale of development a. This is massive scheme which will overpower Barwell and gobble up the neighbouring village of Stapleton.

b. Development is out of scale.

c. It will make the existing village centre a ghost town and actually the new village centre geographically will be the tip.

d. Sheer size of the development will destroy the village character of Barwell.

e. 2,500 new homes are not required in this area as few people are moving into the area, highlighted by the inability of current residents to sell their house, plus the fact that new developments in this area have lain idle for several months.

f. Great shame to see the lovely countryside consumed by this planned development, particularly the fields along the footpaths from Barwell to Stapleton where nature has flourished in recent years.

g. The development will effectively turn Barwell into a town and lose its community feeling.

h. The rear of one objector's property overlooks what will form part of the SUE, due to topography of the landscape the sheer scale of the project will be totally overbearing.

9.6 Traffic a. Traffic congestion will be awful.

b. The narrow, congested major roads in Barwell are already a severe problem and the plans offer no remedy other than area of no parking and traffic calming.

c. With large numbers having to commute to places like Leicester and Coventry there will be a significant increase in traffic along A447, through the centres of both Barwell and Hinckley and at the A47/A5 junction.

d. The narrow streets, namely Shilton Road, Stapleton Lane, Chapel Street and High Street are already narrow and congested and the potential to almost double the population overnight will make this congestion even worse. Situation is exasperated by residential on-street parking, in many places the roads are reduced to what can be best described ‘single track’ routes.

e. Think about a one way traffic system for High Street.

f. The planners don’t seem to have accounted for the increase in the amount of HGV’s through the village throughout construction. The bend by the Nags Head is not suitable for HGV’s; they cannot pass around this bend without stopping on coming traffic. This is a safety concern.

g. Once the development has been completed the industrial part of the development will also see a significant increase in commercial vehicles through the village, HGV’s based at Moat Way currently frequent the village so an increase in inevitable.

h. There will be a significant increase in normal vehicle traffic as the only access from Barwell West towards Coalville, Market Bosworth and the very popular garden centres is through the village of Stapleton.

50 i. Has consideration been given to a by-pass for Stapleton? j. As peak times and during the school run ‘Top Town’ is severely congested. k. Traffic calming measures will only hinder the free movement of traffic resulting in further congestion, further air pollution and noise pollution. l. A side effect of the traffic calming will result in Fairacre, Blackburn Road, The High Street, Church Lane and the Dovecote becoming a rat run through housing estates for traffic wanting to access the Earl Shilton bypass. m. The local road infrastructure cannot cope with existing traffic and gridlock can be expected with an extra 2,500 cars assuming just one car per household. n. No plans to upgrade local main roads, up to and including the A5 in support of so many new homes. o. The preferred route to Leicester by Stapleton residents is via A447 to Kirby Mallory and Peckleton. The new residents are likely to adopt the same route and hence the traffic through these quiet villages will increase dramatically. p. Safety issues for Stapleton for those crossing the main road due to increase in traffic. q. The bends in Stapleton are not the only problem as the other end of the village is also a notorious accident spot. The first property to be encountered has had five vehicles on their roofs in the front garden in the last few years. A 40mph speed limit has not reduced this problem. r. Issues raised with the data available with the computer model. s. Drivers travelling to Nuneaton from Hinckley use the Wykin route to Higham on the Hill or the Stoke Golding route to Higham on the Hill. This would totally overload the village of Higham as the road passes through the village past the school. t. The roads already affected are Rogues Lane and Dadlington Lane in Stapleton. They are both used as a cut through to Stoke Golding and then through Higham to Nuneaton. u. The preferred routes for accessing the M1 north and Leicester are via the A447 through Stapleton. There will also be traffic implications for the nearby villages of Kirby Mallory and Peckleton as they provide the quickest routes to Leicester. Furthermore in order to avoid congestion when joining the A5 local car commuters use Dadlington Lane, a single track road which is unsuitable to take additional traffic. v. Increase in the already heavy traffic on the A5/Dodwells Island and Longshoot. This area is already severely affected during peak periods and has been for some time. w. The Environmental Impact Assessment Volume 3c contains traffic modelling but no evidence that Stapleton had been considered as part of the planning process. The framework travel plan seems to suggest that any future traffic calculations are based on the following premise; ‘the overall objective for the development is to reduce the percentage of occupants travelling by car’. This is absurdly naïve.

x. Whilst the encouragement of cycling and public transport is commendable, it is simply not realistic. The proposed cycle paths within the SUE do not extend beyond the site or connect to cycle paths elsewhere.

y. There are no proposals in the application for major improvements to the road network in Barwell and beyond. This will have a significant, detrimental impact on Barwell.

9.7 Infrastructure a. Infrastructure is not in place to handle this large development mainly water/gas.

b. Schools and medical facilities are full to capacity.

c. It is clear that the SUE will be fully dependant on the infrastructure of the present village of Barwell, including schools, health facilities, dentists, shops, public meeting places and places of worship. These facilities are not within walking distance of the proposed residential area of the SUE.

d. Concerned about the location of the school. Due to the prevailing westerly winds it would mean that the pupils and staff would be exposed to exhaust fumes and noise pollution for most of the year.

e. Raise major concerns over the existing infrastructure as to whether it can cope.

f. The proposals involve the development of a new ‘community hub’ which the applicants states will not compete with the existing village centre. Fail to see how this can be achieved as the new hub is likely to draw people away from the existing village centre.

g. Questions over the financial commitment to the new school.

h. The SUE would see the existing recycling centre on Stapleton Lane become the central focus point of the enlarged village. There is an opportunity to relocate the recycling centre to the proposed employment area in the SUE. This will be better located on the outskirts of the village thereby negating users of the recycling centre from travelling through the village.

i. The proposed development offers ‘token’ leisure facilities in the form of football pitches. Given the scale of the proposed development HBBC should be pushing for additional, more ambitious facilities. There should be a new leisure centre (near Hinckley football ground) built at the outset of the development.

9.8 Wildlife a. Displacement of wildlife habitat, no green spaces will be left.

b. Destruction of local countryside, including trees and animals.

c. Barwell’s green land should be maintained, it supports wildlife like the Great Spotted Woodpecker, Jay, Bullfinch, Robin, Sparrow, Blackbird, Song Thrush, Coal Tit, Reed, Bunting, Wren, Sparrow Hawk, Grey Heron, Magpie, Blue Tit, Collared Dove, Wood Pigeon, frogs and toads.

d. The detrimental impacts of the development i.e. loss of Greenfield land, increased traffic, loss of trees and hedgerows and other habitats far outweigh the perceived benefits i.e. regeneration on which the applicant offers no firm commitments or guarantees.

9.9 Employment a. New industrial units are not required as there are countless existing units that are empty.

b. There is not enough local employment for the additional residents, so they will have to commute, causing more environmental damage and traffic congestion.

c. Lack of jobs for existing residents.

9.10 Noise a. Mallory Park race track is a credit to the area but the new residents of this development will almost certainly raise a noise complaint which will hinder Mallory’s activities in the future and impact related businesses.

b. Noise impact from prolonged construction work that may be generated will be unreasonable for those local residents who have homes adjoining the proposed scheme.

9.11 Flooding a. Question potential risk of flooding together with sewerage systems being unable to cope.

b. River Tweed runs through the centre of the site. This may look insignificant but it has flooded on several occasions.

c. The proposal is being built around and on an existing floodplain which protects the village which already suffers from flooding in some parts.

9.12 Public transport a. The reference to public transport connecting the new estate to Hinckley rail station is absurd as no buses go to the train station. The bus station in Hinckley is 5-10 minutes walk from the train station.

b. It is not realistic to think that up to 4000 people will all cycle or catch buses. This will not happen in the real world.

9.13 Public realm/village centre improvements a. It is the Top Town area of the village which is desperately in need of regeneration not a new development west of the village.

b. The public realm enhancements will do little to enhance Top Town. The Co-Op has already been refurbished and there is currently a seating area by the Co-Op. Privately owned shops which have fallen into disrepair will be unaffected by the proposals.

c. Existing centre needs to be modernised and the infrastructure improved before we are able to cope with another 2,500 homes.

d. The idea of improved town centre and new shops is all well and good but if there was a demand for shops then it already would have happened. Most people get everything they need from the supermarkets and out of town shopping centres and that won’t change.

e. The premise of the SUE is to provide regeneration of the existing Barwell village. The applicant fails to set out how this will be achieved other than some references to possible improvements to the existing centre. However no firm detail, timing, commitments or guarantees are provided.

f. No details on the Barwell Regeneration Fund. This fund is fundamental to the development should it proceed.

9.14 Impact of residential amenity a. All previously enjoyed privacy will be lost. Not only will we be overlooked by residential properties we will be overlooked by any member of the public using the green space which has been allocated on the far bank of the Tweed River.

b. Loss of residential amenity from increase in traffic noise.

c. Due to its rural location Stapleton currently experiences only low levels of light pollution. The proposed development will have a negative impact on this particularly as the community hub will be 4 storeys high and clearly visible from Stapleton.

d. Proposals affect the ability for people to use existing open fields for dog walking/horse riding.

e. Concern over construction of development in terms of noise, dust, impact on health of residents.

9.15 Screening of development/visual impact on Stapleton a. The application shows tree screening and/or large area of green space to all boundaries of the proposed development with the exception of the western boundary along the A447 and part of the development north of Stapleton Lane. There will be significant visual impact on Stapleton arising from the development. The existing hedgerow along the A447 is of an inadequate height to shield the views of the development, particularly the community hub and the school. Suggest that a ‘green wedge’ be formed between Stapleton and the SUE to provide an adequate area of separation.

b. The proposed housing estate is only 500metres from Stapleton parish church and hence the village will effectively become part of Barwell. It therefore threatens Stapleton’s identity as a village.

9.16 Carousel Park a. Lack of information in respect of the proposed boundary treatments. The need for an effective boundary is to 1) create a secure and impenetrable boundary between the proposed residential development and the park; and 2) to screen both visually and acoustically the established activities of the Showmen from the future residents of the residential areas, thereby protecting the latter’s perceived amenity.

9.17 Consultation process a. Concerns over lack of meaningful consultation, particularly for Stapleton and therefore unable to have any influence over the design aspects of the application.

b. Stapleton Parish Council was not consulted or involved in these proposals, even when the core strategy was being developed. The villages of Kirby Mallory, Peckleton and Stapleton are all affected but have been ignored.

c. ‘Localism’ and ‘Community Engagement’ are a fundamental part of the Government’s National Policy Framework however it was the developers who engaged with the public at George Ward Centre and not the Borough Council.

d. HBBC and the Parish Council must take note of the growing local opposition to Barwell West.

9.18 Other issues a. Concerns over level of affordable housing.

b. 3 and 4 storey developments are unsuitable for a countryside development

c. Concerns raised with lack of fences around public/green space with regard to public safety.

d. More suitable sites adjacent to Normandy Way, Clickers Way and the A5 should be brought forward.

e. Where will all these new buyers come from?

f. People did not democratically approve this development.

g. The application should not be determined until HBBC has adopted the Earl Shilton and Barwell Area Action Plan (AAP). Policy 3 of the Core Strategy states that the development must be in conformity with the AAP. To determine the application before the AAP is adopted is not only premature and contrary to Policy 3 but would also devalue the importance of the AAP. It is critical the AAP is adopted before the application is determined in order that HBBC, the developer and Barwell residents have a clear understanding of the strategy to regenerate Barwell.

h. Proposals do not include provision for bungalows contrary to Policy 16 of the Core Strategy.

9.19 Councillor David Gould has made the following comments on the application (neither objecting or in support): a. Strong concerns regarding the use of speed cushions on Stapleton Lane due to delay they cause to journey times. The current installations on Hinckley Road have not gone down well with residents. A solution entailing a series of pinch points and speed tables would be preferred.

b. There is little information regarding off-site highway works which is a key concern for residents. Whilst in meetings we have discussed improvements in particular to the A47/A447 junction I can find no information about this within the application.

c. Limited attention paid to cycle provision. Why are cycle lanes not provided throughout Stapleton Lane?

d. Given limited visibility at Abraham’s Bridge, it would be helpful to provide some pedestrian facilities to allow residents to continue along the footpath westwards to Dadlington/Stoke.

e. Concerns have been raised with the possible funding towards facilities such as a primary school. It would be helpful for this information to be clarified in order that residents take a balanced view.

9.20 One email in support of the application stating: a) It will enhance the area and bring in new people which will provide new business opportunities.

b) People walking to work will be great for the environment.

10. SECOND PHASE OF CONSULTATION ON THE APPLICATION NOVEMBER 2012

10.1 Following the submission of additional information relating to the Environmental Statement, a second round of public consultation was undertaken on 27 November 2012.

10.2 The following consultation responses were received:-

10.3 North Warwickshire Borough Council raise no further comments

10.4 Sport England raise no objection on the understanding that the points raised in their original response are secured by way of legal agreement or condition.

10.5 Natural England No further comments to make.

10.6 Leicestershire County Council (Ecology) Happy to withdraw objection to the scheme

10.7 English Heritage No further comments to make

10.8 Blaby District Council No further comments on additional information

10.9 Sapcote Parish Council Request an extension of time to submit comments

10.10 Peckleton Parish Council Continue to oppose to the application on the following grounds: i. Failure to consult – no consultation with Peckleton Parish Council prior to the submission of the application.

ii. Traffic Implications – the Traffic Assessment largely ignored the effects of traffic arising from the Barwell SUE on Stapleton and the surrounding villages to the west. Request a condition that all construction traffic should be directed via the A447 and A47. Additional traffic through the village will have severe negative implications for the residents generating noise and air pollution from the additional vehicles together with an increased risk of accidents. The LLITM shows that the developers’ assumption that traffic would use the A47, A5 and M69 are flawed and that much traffic will be using rural roads as a shortcut. Also do not accept the developer’s reliance on Travel Plans as do not see how these can be imposed and monitored on a development of such a scale. Request that prior to any development being commenced agreed traffic calming measures should be agreed with each rural community affected by traffic arising from the development. Also have further concerns with regard to congestion and safety issues which would arise at the Stapleton Road/A447 junction. No decision on a

development of this size and magnitude should be made until the final LCC traffic report has been received.

iii. Pedestrian and cycle access – developers have placed much reliance on the sustainable nature of the development having incorporated pedestrian and cycle ways. Residents from Stapleton would not be able to access these new routes without using the A447. The footpath from St Martin’s Church, Stapleton to Stapleton Road, Barwell only runs to the west side of the A447. This would preclude residents of Stapleton from benefiting from the proposed enhanced cycle and public transport links.

iv. Flooding risk – villages adjacent to Stapleton are already affected by flooding from the river Tweed and there are further implications for villages near the Sence. Require assurance of the adequacies of the proposals to deal with surface water and cope with climate change.

v. Scale of proposed development – size is inappropriate to its location and to the available road networks and will impose on the rural nature of Stapleton without providing any material benefit to offset the adverse implications outlined.

vi. Screening of proposed development – current views from the Stapleton are of agricultural land with distant views to Barwell. Would like further details of the nature of the planting proposed which will screen the northern boundary and a scheduled timetable for this. Request that tree and hedging screening on this boundary should be commenced at the outset of the development.

vii. Green wedge – ask HBBC to reconsider the adoption of green wedge between the proposed development and the village of Stapleton in order to protect the village in the future from any further encroachment of development.

viii. Future consultation – ask for the developers to arrange a meeting in order that residents concerns are addressed.

11. REPRESENTATIONS FROM SECOND PHASE OF CONSULTATION

11.1 Over 800 neighbour notification letters were sent to properties within Barwell. 20 site notices were displayed on and adjacent to the application site (including within Stapleton) and press notice was published in the Hinckley Times on 13 December 2012.

11.2 The second round of consultation resulted in the submission of 36 public representations of which all raised objections to the application.

11.3 The majority of representations reiterated the comments previously submitted in relation to the principle of development rather than focusing on the additional information submitted as such they are not rehearsed again in relation to the Second Phase of Consultation, as they are clearly set out above in connection with the First Phase of Consultation. The following objections were received addressing new matters/concerns. • Concern that the Council are not listening to the views of local residents.

• Question why a large proportion of proposed new dwellings have to be in one location.

• Traffic analysis needs review and updating

11.4 One representation focused on the amendment to the Design and Access Statement and raised the following comments: • The document only contains the landscape and green infrastructure strategy – not the design and access statement as stated;

• The document is fundamentally flawed as a landscape strategy because it completely ignores the impact of the SUE on the surrounding landscape;

• The relationships of housing and roads to the land form and topography are not illustrated (figure 8.1)

• The SUE is labelled as an extension of Barwell which is effectively screened from the development. The housing development will be highly visible to both the village of Stapleton and all drivers along a one mile length of the A447.

• Concern that housing layout and roads do not relate to the land topography as housing will be built on steep slopes and be highly visible from afar to the location on relatively high ground.

• Long term maintenance implication and costs of proposed landscaping need to be assessed, agreed and accepted by HBBC.

11.5 One representation focused on the addendum to the Planning Statement and raised the following comments; • Paragraph 2.18 – impact on roads, especially A447 is not addressed;

• Detrimental impact on surrounding landscape is not mentioned in the context of good design which should apply beyond the site as well as within it;

• Leicestershire Police have raised a formal objection, they are also critical of the design and layout which does not mitigate against crime.

• No reference to provision for secondary or further education – what contributions will be made;

• How can 2,500 houses, plus warehousing and roads actually conserve and enhance the natural environment?

• LCC Ecologist does not support the proposals in respect of ecology;

• NPPF refers to empowering local people to shape local and neighbourhood plans- this has not happened as evidenced by the many protests by Barwell and Stapleton residents;

• Application does not comply with local development plan;

• The justification that the benefits of the SUE outweigh Policy NE5 is not a statement of fact but a very biased matter of opinion held by the applicant;

• Peckleton Parish Council were not consulted on the adopted Core Strategy;

• Planning issues elsewhere is the country cannot set a precedent;

• The stated strong links to Barwell must be challenged. The lack of road connectively means that once in their car residents will work and shop elsewhere;

• Site is not appropriate, no direct link to A47;

• Application does not include Code for Sustainable Homes for BREEAM;

• The Barwell village centre improvements consultation event held in November was not unanimously welcomed as stated;

• Proposed health centre will not be provided by application – depends of NHS who has no capital funding to do this;

• Under supply of housing is needs contesting.

11.6 One representation focused on the addendum to the Environmental Statement and raised the following comments: • No attempt has been made to respect the proximity of the village of Stapleton or increase the area of separation between the proposed SUE and Stapleton.

• Disagree with paragraph 8.4 that the residual impact of the development is negligible as it will have many adverse impacts including; reduction in good agricultural land, impact on roads and traffic on rural road network, impact on surrounding landscape, impact on crime and policing, impact on education and health provision, impact on village of Stapleton which has been completely ignored in the application.

11.7 One representation focused on the response by EDP (Ecology, Heritage and Landscape consultants) on Peckleton Parish Council comments and raised the following comments: • Questions EDP statement that their involvement spans several years as the project has not existed for several years;

• The report acknowledges that the SUE will be visible from parts of Stapleton but not qualify or quantify these. It does not identify the properties in Stapleton which will have a view of the SUE;

• Timing of any planting must be prior to or consecutive with house building;

• Assumption that 300m of land is sufficient to separate Stapleton from the SUE is preposterous;

• Absurd to think that retained footpaths through residential areas will in some ways be better than they are now;

• Report makes no reference to the topography;

• Has HBBC challenged the lack of noteworthy ecology? LCC Ecology maintains their objection to the application;

• The implication that the ecology of green corridors and domestic gardens will be better than agricultural fields is absurd – this comment must be challenged;

• Light and noise pollution which will emanate from the SUE is not mentioned.

12. THIRD PHASE OF CONSULTATION ON THE APPLICATION FEBRUARY 2013

12.1 Following the submission of additional information relating to the Environmental Statement, a third round of public consultation was undertaken on 1 February 2013.

12.2 The following consultation responses were received:

12.3 Severn Trent No objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions in relation to surface water and foul water drainage.

12.4 Leicestershire County Council Minerals Notwithstanding the conclusions reached in the Mineral Assessment Report by Peter Brett Associates that the mineral resource which would be sterilised by the development is unlikely to be commercially viable to work leads the Mineral Planning Authority to advise that it would not be a reason to refuse permission in itself but it is an impact that needs to be taken into account in the decision making process.

12.5 English Heritage The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

12.6 Leicestershire County Council Ecology No further comments

12.7 Leicestershire County Council Planning Authority With regard to the final comments of the Mineral Planning Authority on the Mineral Safeguarding issue, and the Highway Authority, in respect of the Highway and Transport impact of the development and consequent requirements for mitigation, that work is still ongoing and it would be inappropriate for the Borough Council to issue a decision on the application until final comments can be provided. Notwithstanding that, ideally the application should not be determined in advance of an adopted Area Action Plan, in order to secure the proper planning of the area and avoid the risk of the SUE’s being development in isolation.

12.8 Furthermore, the Borough Council has previously stated that: a) The two SUE’s need to be planned and delivered together; b) That the two SUE’s have not been planned together and an Area Action Plan, to which any proposed development should conform, has not been concluded and adopted; and c) The County Council believes the Barwell SUE proposal has not been adequately assessed by the Borough Council and cannot be supported.

12.9 Blaby District Council (BDC) No objection to the principle of the SUE to the west of Barwell as established in, and tested at the Examination of, the adopted Core Strategy. BDC notes the comments made by Leicestershire County Council (LCC) and agrees with LCC with regards to the planning application needing to take into account the Leicester Leicestershire Integrated Transport Model (LLITM) modelling work to fully understand and therefore appropriately mitigate any impacts on the road network, particularly the roads within the District of Blaby. BDC wishes to await the comments of LCC on the Transport Assessment update before submitting further comments.

12.10 Peckleton Parish Council Continues to oppose the application on several grounds. Reasons and comments were detailed in earlier representations. Feel that the revised traffic design will not address or solve the probable traffic and safety issues for Stapleton village and villagers. Please consider the following:

• There will be increased traffic volumes and particularly at peak times. This will coincide with the time that our village children have to cross the A447 to get to school. We feel that a proper traffic controlled pedestrian crossing is required.

• The construction of the Barwell SUE and the development of an industrial estate will mean an increase in HGV traffic coming south as well as north along the A447. Greater consideration and changes need to be made to address the increased potential road safety hazard at the Nags Head corner.

• The traffic plan should not be based solely on the consequences resulting from Barwell SUE. There are also the Earl Shilton SUE and MIRA developments to take in to account. It would be irresponsible to make far reaching and expensive decisions to meet only a small proportion of the areas need when it is known other significant developments about to take place.

• We find it hard to believe the SUE development is classed as ‘no significant traffic impact’ for Stapleton and the A447. We do not accept this. In order for us to consider and analyse the reasoning behind this premise can you or the developers please send to us their data that leads to this conclusion,

• Our local knowledge and ‘straw polls’ has lead us to strongly believe that the natural routes selected for going west or north from the Barwell SUE will be via the A447 north in to Stapleton. The new traffic plan does not introduce any provision to speed up the traffic flows through the A447/A47 intersection. In fact the increase traffic flow and the proposed ‘slowing down’ measures will only increase the travel times along the A447, A47, A5 route and thus make the A447 north alternative even more attractive.

• Request that the consultation period is extended until the LCC report is issued and Peckleton Parish Council have had reasonable time to digest and comment on it.

• The TA does not consider additional traffic stemming from the proposed Earl Shilton SUE.

12.11 Stoke Golding Parish Council comments that the surrounding Parish Councils are of the same opinion that the planning application has not dealt with either a traffic assessment for rural road issues, nor flooding issues and because of this lack of information and without the provision of a new road from the site to the northern perimeter road it is considered the development is not sustainable. Stoke Golding PC request there is an extension of the consultation period as the Council is unable to make any significant comments regarding a traffic assessment until the LCC Highway report has been received, plus on the flooding issues.

12.12 Sutton Cheney Parish Council requests an extension to the consultation period.

13. REPRESENTATIONS FROM THIRD PHASE OF CONSULTATION

13.1 Over 800 neighbour notification letters were sent to properties within Barwell and 20 site notices were displayed on and adjacent to the application site (including within Stapleton) on 1 st February 2013. A press notice was published in the Hinckley Times on 7 February 2013.

13.2 The third round of consultation resulted in the submission of 25 public representations of which all raised objections to the application.

13.3 The majority of representations reiterated the comments previously submitted in relation to the principle of development rather than focusing on the additional information submitted as such they are not rehearsed again in relation to the Third Phase of Consultation, as they are clearly set out above in connection with the First and Second Phase of Consultation. The following objections were received addressing new matters/concerns. • HBBC have a legal responsibility not to cause flooding to third parties land or water courses.

• Loss of farmers jobs, loss of food producing land in times of world shortages, wildlife loss

• Medical centre should remain within centre of Barwell

• Many existing distribution and storage warehouses are unfilled, why take farm land when these units are unused?

• Who will buy these homes when we have a third dip recession?

• With regards to increase in traffic, it is not only rush hour which causes concern but vehicles leaving Woodlands and Greenacres Garden Centres on the edge of the village. Thankfully relatively few fatalities have occurred but unfortunately the planning department seems only interested in statistics of fatal accidents – less serious accidents tend to get missed.

• The winter flooding has proven the concern about the development being on a flood plain. Photographs taken show a vast area of the proposed development under water which when under concrete and tarmac will exacerbate the problem further.

• Development will divide the village of Barwell

• Application is premature. The AAP has not been finalised, tested at examination and remains unadopted. The AAP will be a key planning document designed to guide/inform a planning decision to ensure that the development is properly assessed to bring maximum community benefit to residents, new and existing. A proper decision cannot be made without the adopted AAP in place. To determine the application before the AAP is adopted is potentially unsafe and opens up the possibility of a judicial review from other stakeholders.

• The addendum to the TA is unfairly biased towards the developers and request that the Highways Agency either reviews and approves this document or preferably perform their own analysis and conclusions. From a technical viewpoint the data contained in the document has no supporting evidence, does not consider a wide enough area to be able to determine traffic flows (specifically it does not consider any traffic to or from Hinckley/M69 not via the A5), it does not consider the traffic from Earl Shilton SUE and conclusions are based on differences between undocumented traffic models not acceptable actual traffic flows. The document should be removed from any council decisions until it has been reviewed by a relevant Authority, namely the Highways Agency.

• It is clear the TA is still in the early stages. More work and more consultation are required before anyone can make an informed judgement on the correct way forward. It would be totally inappropriate for HBBC to come to any decision on this application while there are so many outstanding issues.

• It will be difficult and dangerous for vehicles attempting to turn onto the A447 form Hinckley Road, including the many large lorries that use it to access Moat Way and Goose Lane.

• TA is on the conservative side in regards to volumes of traffic.

• Modelling techniques by consultants do not take into account the special features or predict the delay that will be caused by all of the pinch points in the road system of Barwell. The poor road infrastructure is not conducive to public transport moving through the village. The plan to install traffic lights to enable access/egress to the development via A447 delay is a poor idea. If progress along the A447 is impeded by traffic lights and gridlock, with Hinckley shopping centre is terminal decline, extending journey times into Hinckley centre may dissuade people making the journey or divert through Barwell via Stapleton Lane.

• The new TA does not address the concerns similarly expressed by the LCC in their review of the previous TA and not surprisingly the developer’s consultants have put forward a further case which supports their funder’s wishes.

• Draws attention to the conclusion of the County Council Planning Cabinet meeting conclusion of 6 th February 2013: ‘The County Council believes that the Barwell SUE proposal has not been adequately assessed by the Borough Council and cannot be supported’.

13.4 One representation focused on the Transport Addendum and raised the following comments: • The latest document does not seem to address Stapleton’s issues. No reference to Stapleton despite County Council’s comments that mitigation from School Lane in Stapleton to the A47 Normandy Way has not been included.

• The proposed traffic lights at the Stapleton Lane/A447 junction are not needed to slow traffic down into Stapleton village from the south because the dangerous Z bends already do that. Measures are required to slow traffic entering Stapleton from the north. No reference to this in new document.

• The narrow country lanes from the Barwell SUE to Daddlington, Stoke Golding, Sutton Cheney, Higham and Fenny Drayton will be swapped – this issue has not been addressed.

• The new document does not include the impact of the proposed Earl Shilton SUE which will add further traffic. Traffic and transport assessment must logically form part of the Area Action Plan relating to both SUE’s but this has not yet been agreed or adopted.

• The Borough Council should not determine the application unless the new document has been fully assessed by the relevant professional experts.

• The developer’s proposal will transform the A447 into yet another congested suburban road with new houses alongside one mile of its length.

• Despite the promise of huge investment in infrastructure as a result of the SUE, there are no plans for a by-pass for Stapleton.

13.5 One representation focused on the Minerals Addendum and raised the following comments; • The conclusion that commercial extraction of minerals within the application site is unlikely to be economically viable is likely to be biased in favour of the planning application.

• Trust that the Borough Council have sought adequate expert advice on the technical aspects of this report.

• Conditions should be imposed in respect of mineral extraction as required by the County Council should planning permission be granted.

• HBBC must note that the County Council at Cabinet level does not support the Barwell SUE.

14. FOURTH PHASE OF CONSULTATION ON THE APPLICATION MARCH 2013

14.1 Following the submission of additional information relating to the Environmental Statement, a fourth round of public consultation was undertaken on 1 March 2013.

14.2 The following consultation responses were received:

14.3 English Heritage The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

14.4 Natural England The proposed amendments to the original application relate largely to highways and are unlikely to have significantly different impacts on the natural environment than the original proposals.

14.5 Sport England As the additional information relates to proposed highway infrastructure works, Sport England does not wish to make any further representations over and above those previously submitted.

14.6 Leicestershire County Council Ecology No further comments to make

14.7 Leicestershire County Council Archaeology No further comments to make

15 . REPRESENTATIONS FROM FOURTH PHASE OF CONSULTATION

15.1 Over 800 neighbour notification letters were sent to properties within Barwell and 20 site notices were displayed on and adjacent to the application site (including within Stapleton) on 4 th March 2013. A press notice was published in the Hinckley Times on 7th March 2013.

15.2 The fourth round of consultation resulted in the submission of 7 public representations of which all raised objections to the application.

15.3 The majority of representations reiterated the comments previously submitted in relation to the principle of development rather than focusing on the additional information submitted as such they are not rehearsed again in relation to the Fourth Phase of Consultation, as they are clearly set out above in connection with the First and Second and Third Phase of Consultation. The following objections were received addressing new matters/concerns.

• Alterations to the Longshoot A5 junction will do nothing to increase the flow of traffic. In adding a lane for a few hundred yards to filter back again will cause certain people to try and out accelerate one another and in the light of the necessity to make less carbon emissions and burn less fuel this is a totally none green proposal.

15.4 Councillor David Gould has made the following further comments on the application (neither objecting or in support): • The Highways Addendum brings forward a number of significant improvements which are welcomed;

• Reiterates concerns that the traffic calming indicated along Stapleton Lane is inappropriate and would have a damaging effect on property as has a similar installation on Hinckley Road.

• Would prefer to see a holistic scheme that considers the route throughout including Stapleton Lane, Chapel Street and The Common, paying particular regard to the junction of Stapleton Lane/Fairacre Road, resolving the pinch point along Chapel Street to prevent deadlock and traffic calming measures on The Common.

• Would like to see consideration given to the imposition of a width restriction on Chapel Street to prevent HGV’s accessing the village centre via this route.

• Appalled to discover just how short the turning right lanes are at Dodwells Island and A447/A47 junction. Would like to see improvements made to these junctions to the extent that motorists would not feel the need to route via the villages.

• Concerned that there will be an increase in the traffic levels through Stapleton and whilst this may not be significant the current situation is challenging for all concerned. Perhaps investment in additional Vehicle Activated Signs could assist.

• Hope to see cycle prohibitions on current routes, such as between The Barracks and Jersey Way, lifted in conjunction with a separate cycle lane in order to provide excellent connectivity for active transportation options from within the SUE.

16. FIFTH PHASE OF CONSULTATION ON THE APPLICATION APRIL 2013

16.1 Following the submission of additional information relating highway drawings, a fifth round of public consultation was undertaken on 2 April 2013.

16.2 Leicestershire County Council – Highways were the only consultee consulted on the application as the additional information only related to highway plans. Their comments are contained within Appendices 5 and 6 of the report.

16.3 Peckleton Parish Council provided further comments on the application and continue to object to the application on the following grounds: • The traffic modelling and solutions appear to concentrate on main traffic routes to the south and west of the SUE. No firm proposals or mitigation are recommended for the A447 through Stapleton.

• Even if the modelling proves to be correct then the additional traffic forecast to enter Stapleton will make it hazardous, particularly at peak times, to cross the main road which divides the village. It also appears the risk of accidents at the bends adjacent to the Nags Head. The proposed traffic lights should slow traffic entering Stapleton from the south however the lights will not affect the speed of traffic entering Stapleton from the north when negotiating the bends.

• The additional traffic lights and roundabout proposed on the A447 will not encourage traffic to use the A47 east when a quicker, shorter route is available.

• The modelling undertaken by LCC clearly identifies that the majority of traffic flow arising from the SUE will be heading to and from the west of the SUE. We consider that this only serves to indicate that the location of the SUE is inherently wrong, requiring major investment in alterations to the A447, when by relocating the development closer to the A5 and A47 this could be avoided together with the other negative implications for the rural roads.

• When the planning committee undertake their site visit we ask that they should include a visit to Stapleton and associated rural roads which we have identified as being affected by the increase in traffic arising from the SUE.

• We also ask that planning committee not determine this application when the transport mitigation proposals have not yet been fully agreed and successfully resolved.

17. REPRESENTATIONS FROM FIFTH PHASE OF CONSULTATION

17.1 Over 800 neighbour notification letters were sent to properties within Barwell and 20 site notices were displayed on and adjacent to the application site (including within Stapleton) on 2 April 2013. A press notice was published in the Hinckley Times on 4 April 2013. Any representations received after the drafting of this report will be reported to Members as a late item.

17.2 The fifth round of consultation resulted in the submission of 4 public representations. The majority of the comments reiterated the comments previously submitted in relation to the principle of development rather than focusing on the additional information submitted as such they are not rehearsed again in relation to the Fifth Phase of Consultation, as they are clearly set out above in connection with the First and Second, Third and Fourth Phase of Consultation. The following objections were received addressing the highway drawings: • Concerns over close nature of the roundabout on the A447 to access to a residential property.

• Consider the existing speed control signage that has been placed on the A447 and the new proposed controls would be a further waste of public money ad the limits are not enforced.

• Concerns with the mitigation measures which are proposed on surrounding highway network, for example raised tables cause damage to vehicles, roundabout and traffic lights are not acceptable, speed limit of 40mph is not acceptable on a major strategic route. It is bizarre that the proposed highway modifications assume that all SUE traffic will travel south to the A47 and that none will travel north through Stapleton to the M1 or west through the narrow country lanes and villages to the A5. No highway modifications are proposed for these routes which will inevitably be forces to absorb SUE traffic. The double Z bend by

the Nags Public House is only 400 yards from the SUE and is so narrow that all large vehicles need to cross the centre line. The dangerous bend to the north of Stapleton has been the scene of many fatal accidents. Both would be solved by the long awaited by pass for Stapleton.

• Determination of the application is inappropriate whilst County Council Highways response is still awaited.

• It would be inappropriate for the planning committee to decide on a planning application that is known to result in increased traffic problems that will necessitate significant infrastructure projects to deal with them and when the costs of these projects are uncosted and even worst unknown.

• Request that the planning committee when they undertake the site visit, will include an examination of the roads and junctions referenced in the proposed mitigation and all the rural roads and villages that have been identified as being affected with increased traffic.

• Since the analysis of the traffic flows indicate the vast majority of traffic will be heading to and from the west why not place the development nearer to the A5/M62.

• The traffic problems identified are one of magnitude and scale. The solution offered is one of mitigation. The better approach would be to tackle the source of the problem which is volume. Reduce the volume.

18. ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED

18.1 Barwell Parish Council Comments not previously received relating to the overall development received 11 April 2013 (Barwell Parish Council notes that, in a recent Parish poll, 1600 residents expressed a preference not to have 2500 houses built. That said, listed below are the Parish Council’s comments.

18.2 Roads and Infrastructure. • Adequate bus service provision right from the start is essential;

• The Council has concerns about current and future parking provision in the village;

• Provision of traffic calming on arterial routes to and from the village is essential;

• The feasibility of a one way traffic system through the village should be investigated;

• Barwell Lane should be tarmac;

• The SUE Shopping Centre should not overwhelm the village centre. To achieve this, shops in the SUE should be smaller those in the village;

• Street furniture could be a common design throughout the village;

• Clear signage on pathways stating whether paths are for cycles, pedestrians or both is required;

• Early determination of the location of the school and any other education facilities is needed;

• A timeline for delivery of relevant items is needed;

• The needs of existing and anticipated future local businesses should be taken into account.

18.3 Employment • The needs of existing and anticipated future local businesses should be taken into account;

• Guaranteed provision of employment opportunities within the SUE is required;

• In the construction phase, local businesses and suppliers should be used;

• The developers should liaise with businesses on Moat Way to look at the feasibility of linking Moat Way to the new business area.

18.4 Houses • All houses in the SUE should have grey water schemes;

• All houses in the SUE should have solar panels and/or any other appropriate energy saving devices;

• The Council is concerned that houses of 2.5 storeys height will overlook the sports area, and have an adverse impact.

18.5 Village Improvement Fund. • The Council wishes all developer funding and developer led schemes to be agreed in writing prior to final planning approval.

18.6 Parish Council • The Council requests that a financial contribution is made for the purposes of corporate governance.

18.7 Parks and Open Spaces • The Parish Council welcomes the protection of trees and hedges within the SUE;

• The Parish Council should have an input into landscaping;

• The Parish Council should have an input into the types of play equipment used;

• Play areas should be fenced off, and wet pour surfacing with concrete edging should be used;

• The Parish Council requires post installation reports on all play equipment prior to transfer;

• Once the final design is approved, the applicant should pay for a grounds maintenance review;

• The Parish Council requires a provisional sum to be paid for the maintenance of parks and open spaces, with a percentage of this paid upfront to allow for training and the purchase of equipment and the remainder prior to transfer;

• Cemetery land up to 4 acres should be provided, or a provisional sum of £45k. paid in lieu;

• All paths must connect to existing pathways or paths already made. Pathways should be guaranteed for 10 years;

• A plan of bench location and design should be agreed with the Parish Council, or a provisional sum allocated towards benches. A sum should also be allocated towards maintenance;

• A plan of dog bin location and design should be agreed with the Parish Council, or a provisional sum allocated towards dog bins. A sum should also be allocated towards maintenance;

• A plan of litter bins and design should be agreed with the Parish Council, or a provisional sum allocated towards litter bins. A sum should also be allocated towards maintenance.

18.8 Sport area • A sport area should be built in the 2 nd . phase, to encourage sport and physical activity for all ages;

• These facilities should be available to all residents, not just residents of the SUE;

• More planning into preventing car access onto the sports area is required;

• The Parish Council requires a grounds maintenance depot, preferably next to the proposed pavilion;

• A provisional sum of money for nets, goalposts, etc., and their maintenance, is required;

• Hedgerows should be kept high to prevent balls going into neighboring properties, etc.

• Adequate drainage for sports pitches is required.

18.9 Sports Pavilion This pavilion must have: • Four changing rooms, with separate facilities for match officials;

• A large, club type room, and smaller rooms for meetings;

• A kitchen/bar area;

• An office area and reception area;

• Funds set aside to furnish the pavilion;

• More car parking than what is currently shown, with a security gate;

• A patio area;

• Funds set aside for maintenance over a 20 year period;

• A 5 year guarantee;

• Low cost heating;

• Funds set aside to staff the pavilion and take bookings, etc.

18.10 Football pitches • All pitches must have sports pitch drainage;

• Funds should be set aside to maintain the pitch drainage;

• Funds should be set aside to maintain the pitches;

• Funds should be set aside to purchase equipment – goals/nets/posts/balls/corner flags/’dug outs’, etc.

18.11 Cricket pitch • The Parish Council objects to the proposal of a cricket pitch. Instead, we need an all weather pitch with:

• Funds set aside to maintain the pitches;

• Funds set aside to purchase equipment - wickets/dividers/nets, etc.

18.12 Bowling Green • Funds should be set aside to maintain the pitches;

• Funds should be set aside to purchase equipment – bowls/flags, etc.

• Funds should be set aside to staff a bookings system

18.13 Sport England The Sports Facility Calculator (SFC) is one part of the overall assessment of the impacts on existing facilities or to give an indication of the demand created for new facilities. Whilst Sport England considers that the SFC is robust, the Sports Contribution Methodology can be used by your authority to ensure that, in the opinion of your authority, the contribution mitigates the impact of the proposed development on sports facility provision. Sport England do not wish to raise an objection to this development so long as the authority is satisfied that the negotiated contribution meets the needs.

19. PLANNING POLICY

19.1 National Policy Guidance The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010, Part 11, Regulation 122

19.2 Local Plan 2006 – 2026: Core Strategy (2009) Policy 3: Development in Barwell Policy 5: Transport Infrastructure in the Sub-regional Centre Policy 15: Affordable Housing Policy 16: Housing Density, Mix and Design Policy 19: Green Space and Play Provision Policy 20: Green Infrastructure Policy 24: Sustainable Design and Technology

19.3 Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001 Policy IMP1: Contributions Towards the Provision of Infrastructure and Facilities Policy BE1: Design and Siting of Development Policy BE5: The Setting of a Listed Building Policy BE13: Initial Assessment of Sites of Archaeological Interest and Potential Policy BE14: Archaeological Field Evaluation of Sites Policy BE26: Light Pollution Policy NE2: Pollution Policy NE5: Development in the Countryside Policy NE10: Local Landscape Improvement Area Policy NE12: Landscaping Schemes Policy NE13:The Effects of Development on Natural Watercourses Policy NE14: Protection of Surface Waters and Groundwater Quality Policy NE15:Protection of River Corridors Policy T3: New Development and Public Transport Policy T5: Highway Design and Vehicles Parking Standards Policy T9: Facilities for Cyclists and Pedestrians Policy T10: Secure Cycle Parking Facilities Policy T11: Traffic Impact Assessment Policy REC2: New Residential Development – Outdoor Open Space Provision for Formal Recreation Policy REC3: New Residential Development – Outdoor Play Space for Children Policy REC4: Proposals for Recreational Facilities

19.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents Supplementary Planning Guidance: New Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document: Play and Open Space Supplementary Planning Document: Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Document: Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document: Rural Needs

19.5 Other Material Policy Guidance Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Review 2010 The SHLAA Review 2010 was published in April 2011 and the application site (AS590) was assessed through this process. The site was identified as suitable, available and achievable and, as a result, developable. Landscape Character Assessment July 2006

19.6 Draft Earl Shilton and Barwell Area Action Plan (AAP) (consultation draft November 2010) The draft APP was approved by Council on 7 December 2010 Policy 1: Settlement Boundary Policy 2: Sustainable Urban Extensions Policy 3a: Highway Requirements Policy 3b: Pedestrian and Cycle Requirements Policy 3c: Public Transport Requirements Policy 4: Overall Utilities Requirements Policy 5: Overall Green Infrastructure Requirements Policy 6: Overall Sports and Leisure Facilities Policy 7: Skills Development Policy 8: District Centres Policy 19: Barwell Urban Extension Policy 20: Housing in Barwell SUE Policy 21: Employment in Barwell Urban Extension Policy 22: Community Hub in Barwell Urban Extension

Policy 23: Green Infrastructure in Barwell Urban Extension Policy 24: General Provision for Barwell Urban Extension Policy 25: Walking and Cycling in Barwell Urban Extension Policy 27: Carousel Park Policy 28: Developer Contributions

20. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

20.1 The main considerations in the determination of this application are:- Planning Policy (Section 21) Highways and access (including Barwell Village Centre Improvements) (Section 22) Affordable Housing (Section 23) Employment (Section 24) Education (Section 25) Urban Design Principles (Section 26) Air Quality (Section 27) Noise (Section 28) Drainage and Flood Risk (Section 29) Ecology (Section 30) Green Infrastructure (Section 31) Trees (Section 32) Cultural Heritage and Archaeology (Section 33) Open Space and Recreation (Section 34) Indoor Sports Facilities (Section 35) Neighbourhood Centre (Section 36) Community Facilities (Section 37) Sustainability (Section 38) Waste Management (Section 39) Land Contamination (Section 40) Geodiversity and Minerals (Section 41) Utilities and Services (Section 42) Phasing (Section 43) Barwell Regeneration (Infrastructure and Developer Contributions) (Section 44) Prematurity (Section 45)

21. PLANNING POLICY

21.1 The National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework promotes sustainable development. That is, development which contributes towards building a strong economy, supporting local communities and which protects and enhances the environment. The NPPF places particular weight on timely and plan-led decision making. Thus proposals that accord with a development plan should be approved without delay.

21.2 As will be illustrated later in this report, the scheme complies with the policies of the development plan for Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council.

21.3 The application will also contribute to several of the NPPF’s key objectives. The scheme contains a significant amount of land devoted to providing B2 and B8 employment uses. Jobs will also be provided in the local service centre and in schools and other facilities associated with the development. That will create employment opportunities for local people and contribute towards strengthening Hinckley’s role as a sub-regional centre.

21.4 The NPPF aims to ensure the vitality of town centres. Accordingly the development does not contain any B1 office uses, which might compete with and undermine the Council’s regeneration objectives for Hinckley town centre. The development also includes a relatively modest amount of local convenience A1 retail floorspace, which is not considered to be of a scale that is likely to undermine the vitality and viability of Barwell’s existing retail offer.

21.5 The NPPF places considerable emphasis on promoting sustainable transport. The highway section of this report demonstrates that the applicant has taken proper measures to promote the use of public transport as well as ensuring car borne and other vehicular traffic is able to access, egress and circulate within the development safely and conveniently, and without causing congestion on the existing road network.

21.6 The NPPF puts much emphasis of the delivery of a wide choice of high quality homes. Against that background a key objective of the scheme is to provide 2500 new dwellings of different sizes and tenures to meet the present and future needs of residents of this Borough. The houses that are proposed to be provided are critically important to securing and maintaining the Borough’s 5 year supply of land for housing in accordance with paragraph 47 of the Framework in the foreseeable future. It should be stressed that if planning permission is refused then by any measure the Borough’s housing land supply will soon be inadequate.

21.7 The NPPF requires new development to be built to a high standard of design. That will be achieved by a comprehensive master plan supported by a phasing plan, detailed masterplans and design code for each phase. Officers are satisfied that the result will be to create an attractive townscape and living environment. The NPPF requires that built development should also promote healthy communities. To that end the scheme provides a range of social, recreational and cultural facilities. They include schools, shops and open space (including sports pitches) and well equipped children’s play areas. The development will also be complemented by comprehensive measures to conserve and enhance the natural and historic environment in accordance with sections 11 and 12 of the Framework.

21.8 Overall, officers therefore conclude the development has been formulated to take full account of, and accord with, the Secretary of State’s policies. The development will provide a sustainable new community that will provide new homes and jobs for local people and help regenerate Barwell and the rest of the Borough.

21.9 The Development Plan

The East Midlands Regional Plan (2009) By the time this application is determined the East Midlands Regional Plan will not be part of the development plan. Having previously announced his intention to revoke the Plan the Secretary of State has completed a strategic assessment of the consequences of doing so. An Order to revoke the Regional Strategy for the East Midlands was laid in Parliament on 20 March 2013 and came into force on 12 April 2013. The document has therefore no longer part of the Development Plan.

21.10 Local Plan 2006-2026: Core Strategy 2009 The Core Strategy is an up-to-date part of the development plan. The Plan sets out the spatial strategy for the Borough between 2006 and 2026. The strategy is to promote Hinckley as a sub-regional centre, supported by the development of sustainable urban extensions at Barwell and Earl Shilton. To this end Policy 3 indicates 2500 new homes will be built in Barwell over the plan period. The delivery of

these homes is critically important to securing 9000 new homes required across the whole of the Borough over the plan period. The scheme will secure that objective. It will also deliver asubstantial number of affordable homes in accordance with policy 15 of the Core Strategy; this benefit ought to be accorded considerable weight; the slow- down in the economy and in the local housing market in particular has constrained the delivery of affordable new homes across Leicestershire and unfortunately Hinckley and Bosworth has not been immune to this trend.

21.11 Policy 3 of the Core Strategy is directed at ensuring Barwell is regenerated to address pockets of significant deprivation characterised by low income, the need for better skills, education and training, more employment and better health facilities. Thus Policy 3 requires the provision of new shops, leisure and sporting facilities, employment opportunities. It provides as follows:-

(The Council will) “ Allocate land for the development of a mixed use Sustainable Urban Extension to the west of Barwell including 2500 environmentally sustainable homes, 15 ha of employment, neighbourhood shops, a new primary school and children’s centre, GP’s, Neighbourhood Policing and green space provision. The employment allocations are to provide for industrial and warehousing developments. They should primarily support local employment opportunities, including starter and grow-on units, and should aim to achieve zero-carbon development. The community services will be provided, in a ‘community hub’, with the primary school and children’s centre at its heart. The feasibility of providing some or all of the energy needs of the Sustainable Urban Extension by sustainable on site power generation will be investigated and if viable, implemented as part of the development. The required facilities, land and buildings will be provided by the developer through appropriate developer contributions and supported by relevant funding streams such as the New Growth Point Initiative. Detailed requirements for this Sustainable Urban Extension including boundaries, facilities to be provided, layout and design, will be set out in an Area Action Plan. All development must be in conformity with this Area Action Plan. No piecemeal developments will be permitted.”

21.12 Policy 5 of the Core Strategy requires the provision of a range of transport improvements associated with the development of the SUE. They will be delivered by this proposal. Policy 19 of the Core Strategy requires the provision of green space and play provision with new development. The application will result in the delivery of such facilities in accordance with that policy. Policy 20 requires the provision of green infrastructure. The application proposals do so. Finally under this head, policy 24 requires applicants to adopt sustainable design and technology. The application proposal is intended and likely to secure that objective.

21.13 Viewed in the round, the application undoubtedly accords with the policies of the Core Strategy.

21.14 The Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001) The Local Plan was adopted in February 2001 and provides detailed guidance on the location and form of development across the Borough.

21.15 Following the publication of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 local planning authorities were given a three year period in which local plan policies would remain extant unless replaced by new policies in local development documents. In 2007 the Secretary of State directed local authorities to save selected policies indefinitely until the appropriate development plan documents supersede them.

21.16 Appendix 3 (page 94) of the Hinckley and Bosworth Core Strategy provides a list of the superseded policies of the Local Plan. The text below this list confirms that policies not listed in appendix 3, along with the Proposals Map, continue to remain as ‘saved’ and part of the Development Plan until they are replaced by policies in future development plan documents.

21.17 By and large the saved policies of the local plan are not an especially helpful guide to the approach that ought to be taken towards determining the issues of principle that arise from this substantial application. Specifically, whilst policy NE5 indicates that the development of large numbers of houses and other urban development in the countryside ought to be resisted (the application site being notated as countryside) it is plain that in the considering the SUE at Barwell little weight can be given to this policy: the “in principle” restriction on development that it imposes is effectively displaced by Core Strategy policy 3.

21.18 Other saved policies set out in the Local Plan provide little helpful guidance on the way in which this application should be determined.

21.19 Overall conclusion on the relationship of the application to the development plan Having regard to the matters set out above officers are firmly of the opinion that the application accords with the development plan viewed as a whole.

22. HIGHWAYS AND ACCESS

22.1 Transport Assessment Methodology The work carried out on behalf of the applicant in the submitted Transport Assessment in the view of the LCC Highways is largely superseded by the strategic land use modelling using the County’s LLITM tool, combined with the detailed microsimulation work using the Hinckley & Nuneaton Paramics model (HNPM), which assessed the operation of a number of key junctions on the highway network at the same time.

22.2 An addendum Transport Assessment (TA) was submitted by the applicant in February 2013 to reflect this work in comparison with the more traditional methods adopted in the original TA.

22.3 Traffic Routing Following LCC Highways concerns on the methodology of the original TA, the Transport Working Group (TWG) have worked closely with the applicant to understand the results from the LLITM modelling. LLITM has forecast the extent to which development and background traffic may divert onto less appropriate routes in avoidance of congestion arising on the major route network. This work has allowed for evidence to be prepared that supports the TWG’s requirements for the implementation of capacity enhancements along principal and major routes such as the A447, A47 and the A5. These measures will assist in encouraging traffic to use those routes that are most suitable.

22.4 Scope of Junction Assessment LCC Highways formal observations of 23rd November 2012 highlighted key concerns regarding the scope of junction assessment incorporated in the original TA. Following the LLITM assessment a number of junctions including Barwell village centre were highlighted as requiring further investigation and this work was revisited as part of the HNPM microsimulation work undertaken on behalf of HBBC.

22.5 LCC Highways confirm in more detail the impact of the proposed development and provides more detail on the routing of traffic and the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation in section 6 of LCC Highways full observations which are appended in Appendix 6 of this report.

22.6 Masterplanning & development phasing LCC Highways have previously highlighted the need for more detailed masterplanning and phasing information to enable a sustainable transport strategy to be developed and delivered.

22.7 In the absence of this information LCC Highways require that a planning condition be applied that requires the applicant to submit a detailed phasing strategy to enable the planning and highway authorities to better understand how the site would be developed over the coming years and define the necessary requirements and trigger points for off-site infrastructure.

22.8 Ashby Road Whilst the development proposes a number of accesses from Ashby Road alongside a proposal to reduce the speed limit, at the time of submission of this application the applicant had failed to demonstrated a cogent overall strategy for this route that would provide the necessary comfort to LCC Highways that the speed of traffic could be effectively restricted below the suggested 40mph limit whilst safely accommodating turning vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.

22.9 In subsequent discussions, LCC Highways has requested that an overall scheme is proposed that covers the entirety of Ashby Road between Stapleton and the A47, with greater regard to the access requirements of pedestrians and cyclists alongside the need to accommodate development traffic along this route.

22.10 Following this, the applicant has submitted amended designs that incorporate: footways that are suitable for use by both pedestrians and cyclists; controlled (signalised) crossing points and crossing facilities for pedestrians wishing to access the County’s Public Rights of Way network and areas of employment / activity further south. There are a number of minor issues with the current designs that are dealt with by condition.

22.11 Public Transport The applicant has proposed an additional public transport service between the site and Hinckley town centre and rail station. The principle of this is supported and LCC Highway officers are currently assessing the applicant’s submitted costing exercise which establishes the likely level of subsidy required to support the service over the early years of the development.

22.12 The detail and phasing of this service are therefore still to be determined and will need to take account of predicted occupation levels and types of housing. The applicant has also agreed that such a service may enable public transport linkage access between Barwell and Earl Shilton at an appropriate time. This will be addressed by way of S106 agreement and conditions.

22.13 The applicant has also agreed to make a section 106 contribution towards Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI), and associated bus stop infrastructure which will facilitate easier bus access and user-ability which will assist with encouraging bus use and therefore modal shift.

22.14 However LCC Highways has outstanding concerns that the present PT proposal does not take account of more distant direct journeys to either Leicester or the Nuneaton/Coventry area, the latter of which has been shown by the LLITM to have a major draw from the site for employment purposes. LCC Highways have requested the imposition of a condition to deal with this matter.

22.15 Walking / Cycling connectivity Of particular concern to LCC Highways is ensuring that appropriate pedestrian and cycle connectivity is provided between the development and Barwell village centre, in addition to the surrounding areas of Stapleton, Hinckley town centre and the employment sites located along the A47 to the south west. Furthermore, it has been necessary to ensure that where Public Rights of Way cross the motorised highway network (such as Ashby Road, above), appropriate crossing facilities are provided.

22.16 The applicant has agreed to fund or deliver a schedule of high-quality walking and cycling routes that permeate the development and provide high quality linkage to the surrounding area. This will assist in facilitating modal shift from car use through providing high quality alternatives to motorised travel. Such works will be subject to a combination of planning conditions and section 106 financial obligations.

22.17 Travel Plan (TP) Following the previous LCC Highways comments, the applicant has submitted a replacement TP as part of the Addendum TA and many of the previous concerns have been addressed. However, LCC Highways still has a number of minor concerns with the replacement document, and these are dealt with by the imposition of a condition.

22.18 Barwell Village Centre Improvements The overarching principle of Policy 3 in the Core Strategy is that the SUE acts as a catalyst for the regeneration of Barwell and as such developers for the SUE will be expected to contribute to the local centre where appropriate. Draft Policy 8 the emerging AAP sets out a range of possible projects for the centre of Barwell that include public realm and landscape works, new car parking provision and the redevelopment of existing building within the centre.

22.19 Public Realm Following dialogue with the developers and discussions with LCC (Highways) throughout the application process, a scheme for public realm improvements within the adopted highway to the centre of Barwell has been submitted. This includes traffic lights within the centre to manage traffic flows, landscaping to give priority to pedestrians movement, defining the centre as a key space rather than just a junction, sculptural public artwork, levels rationalised to improve interface with properties and raised junctions to slow down traffic speeds. The village centre improvement will be delivered via a contribution pursuant to a planning obligation within the S106.

22.20 Town Centre Car Park A further aspect of the improvements to the centre of Barwell involves the redevelopment of the Constitutional Club (also discussed within the Neighbourhood Centre section of this report). Car parking spaces at the Constitutional Club will be available free of charge to the general public whether a GP surgery is constructed on the site or not. These improvements will be secured by way of a S106 planning obligation.

23. AFFORDABLE HOUSING

23.1 Housing applications have to be considered in the context of the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development. Within the NPPF there is a requirement to deliver a wide choice of homes and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. Local Planning Authorities should plan for mixed housing recognising the needs of different groups in the community and identify a range of housing and tenure types. Where there is an identified need for affordable housing, the NPPF states this need can be met on site or off site if it can be robustly justified. This approach should contribute to creating mixed and balanced communities. The NPPF states that the supply of new houses can be achieved through planning for larger scale developments, including extensions to existing villages or towns.

23.2 Policy 3 of the Core Strategy states that the Council will seek to diversify the existing housing stock to cater for a range of house types and sizes as supported by Policy 15 and 16 of the Core Strategy. A key aim in Barwell is to encourage prospering households to move into and stay in the area. The emerging Earl Shilton and Barwell Area Action Plan complements that objective of the Core Strategy.

23.3 The starting point for determining the appropriate amount of affordable housing that should be provided within the SUE is 20% on site with a tenure split of 75% social rented and 25% intermediate housing. In accordance with Policy 15 of the Core Strategy these figures can be negotiated on a site by site basis taking into account; identified local need, existing provision, characteristics of the site and viability. It also states that in areas where there is already a high proportion of affordable housing, the Council may agree to accept commuted sums in lieu of on-site affordable housing. Policy AH7 of the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (adopted February 2011) supports the provision of affordable housing off-site in exceptional circumstances where it can be robustly justified, for example if it is clear that off-site provision would better meet the locally identified priority housing needs. Whilst little weight can be given to the emerging AAP, which is still at a relatively early stage in the plan making process in terms of its compliance with the NPPF it is relevant to note that it supports the potential to accept commuted sums and alternative delivery strategies in lieu of on-site affordable housing for development proposals within the SUE, to contribute towards affordable housing schemes within the wider urban area.

23.4 The developers are proposing 20% affordable housing based on a tenure split of 75% social rent and 25% intermediate. Through discussions with council officers it is proposed that of the 20%, 10% will be affordable housing on site and 10% equivalent will be provided by way of off-site contribution. The off-site contribution will be based on the formula set out in the Affordable Housing SPD and will be secure via the s106. Each phase or parcel will deliver 10% on site provision.

23.5 Paragraph 7.18 of the Affordable Housing SPD states; ‘clauses in respect of the use of commuted sums should initially target the use of the sum to the local area of development (within three miles), but should also allow for the use of the sum in any part of the Borough, depending on priority housing needs, if opportunities for spending the sum in the vicinity of the original development appear to be limited within any defined time limited, normally two years.’

23.6 Paragraph 7.18 of the Affordable Housing SPD enables the Authority to broaden the catchment area in which the commuted sums can be used and not focus on sites within Barwell where this may not be needed. The commuted sum could be used Borough wide on priority housing needs.

23.7 Paragraph 7.17 of the Affordable Housing SPD states that ‘where it is considered that a commuted sum is the most effective way of discharging the developers contribution to affordable housing, and it can be robustly justified, the Council may use the commuted sum in a variety of ways. This may include; • To increase the provision of affordable housing on an alternative scheme;

• To support schemes where affordable housing would not otherwise be viable;

• Increasing the number of family units on a scheme;

• Increasing the quality of dwellings on a scheme, such as a higher level of Code for Sustainable Homes; and

• The Local Planning Authority may accept a financial contribution in lieu of on site provision for regeneration projects which will contribute to the creation of mixed communities within Hinckley and Bosworth.

23.8 Paragraph 7.17 of the Affordable Housing SPD together with Para 50 and 51 NPPF provide justification for the Council to use the monies for wider purposes than just new build off site. The Affordable Housing Delivery Plan (adopted at Council on 19/6/2012) establishes the principle of accepting commuted sums to meet wider strategic objectives for the Borough and gives the priorities for use of commuted sums as: • Investing in regeneration where a relatively small investment will increase the affordable housing offer. This includes bringing empty homes into use, improving flats over shops, and buy back of Council housing lost through Right to Buy.

• Contributing to new build schemes where an injection of relatively small amounts of money will increase the supply of new affordable housing – for example, where the Council has donated land at nil value for provision of affordable housing

• Use of commuted sums to purchase affordable housing on alternative section 106 sites, either direct purchase by the Council or by passing funds over to other Registered Providers.

23.9 The housing mix for on-site delivery of Affordable Housing as part of the development is proposed as follows:

Property type % of total mix Number for 10% on site 1 bed apartments 24% 60 2 bed apartments 4% 10 2 bed bungalows 8% 20 2 bed houses 40% 100 3 bed houses 20% 50 4 bed houses 4% 10 TOTAL 100% 250

23.10 In summary, subject to securing the affordable housing provision as set out above both through obligations in the s106, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with Policy 3, 15 and 16 of the Core Strategy, the Affordable Housing SPD, the emerging AAP and the overarching intentions of the NPPF.

24. EMPLOYMENT

24.1 Policy 3 of the Core Strategy states that the SUE will provide 15ha of employment land to provide for industrial and warehousing developments. They should primarily support local employment opportunities, including starter and grow-on units and should aim to achieve zero-carbon development. The employment land requirement contained within the Core Strategy was based on “The Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Land Study, 2008”. This study has been updated through the ‘The Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Area (HMA) Employment Land Study 2012’ which has been prepared for the Leicester and Leicestershire Local Enterprise Partnership. The latest Report reduces the employment land requirement within the Barwell SUE to 6.5ha.

24.2 The employment land position within the Barwell SUE was considered as part of the SUE Masterplanning exercise undertaken to support the preparation of the Earl Shilton and Barwell Area Action Plan. The Earl Shilton and Barwell Employment Land Assessment, Prospect Leicestershire, November 2010 was prepared to realistically assess the level and type of employment land that can be developed to support the proposed SUE's. The Assessment provides evidence for a maximum land requirement of 6.5ha of employment land within the Barwell SUE having given consideration to existing sites, projected population growth, regeneration, market demands, viability and deliverability. The Assessment concludes that the optimum location for employment uses within the Barwell SUE is at the southern end of the site fronting on to the A447.

24.3 The Assessment indicates that demand for future employment development in the SUE is likely to be restricted to smaller industrial units of between 100 to 1,500 sqm (spanning B1, B2 and B8 use classes). It is anticipated that there will be some demand from existing occupiers in Barwell and Earl Shilton, with quality of accommodation being a particular driver. The prospects for deliverability will be greatly enhanced if development land is serviced (i.e. with access and full services provides to the land from the main estate road) and presented to the market. In addition, the Assessment states that development should seek to ensure that the designated employment areas are not fettered by other uses (particularly housing).

24.4 The emerging Earl Shilton and Barwell Area Action Plan (draft Policy 21) identifies 6.2ha of land for B2 and B8 uses and indicates the need for an appropriate buffer to be provided between the employment area and any surrounding residential land to protect amenity. The indicative layout provided by the ‘Barwell Urban Extension Development Framework’ indicates that this should ideally be located at the southern end of the site with a frontage on the A447.

24.5 The application in fact proposes 6ha of employment land located at the southern end of the site, close to the existing Moat Way industrial area. Access to this land will be from the proposed southern roundabout off the Ashby Road. The employment area will comprise of a mix of B2 general industry uses and B8 distribution and storage facilities, providing up to 24,000sqm of floorspace. The land is indicated to have some frontage on the main route corridor through the SUE but is a little remote from the A447 (approximately 200m along the proposed spine road from the A447 to the proposed employment area). Officers have considered the question of whether this land is likely to be attractive to allocated to employment uses. On balance they are satisfied that whilst this is not the preferred location for employment land it is likely to be attractive to end users and with effective marketing, land being serviced and made

available at reasonable market rates reflecting local market commercial it will come forward for development for that purpose.

24.6 Care has been taken to ensure the employment area is distanced from existing residential properties along Hinckley Road to preserve residential amenity. In response to feedback from public consultation the employment buildings are to be screened from the Hinckley Road residential dwellings. A minimum distance of 150m is set out within figure 7.19 contained within the Design and Access Statement. The dwellings will be separated by allotments, casual/informal open space and a small landscaped bund. Employment heights will also be restricted to 10m in height as shown in figure 6.1 (within the Design and Access Statement) to mitigate any visual impact. A condition is proposed to secure that the bund is constructed prior to occupation of the employment units. Another concern was that employment uses might adversely affect the setting of the grade II listed Barwell Farm House. That issue has been addressed by substituting housing for residential uses in the vicinity of the farmhouse since this will have a lesser impact than larger scale buildings designed to accommodate industrial and distribution uses.

24.7 The Earl Shilton Business Forum and Barwell Business Association jointly sponsored a ‘Skills and Employment Study’ to determine the skills and employment situation from both the employer and community perspectives in Earl Shilton and Barwell. The report prepared by Greenborough identified some local businesses that wish/need to relocate to take advantage of their business growth opportunities. The report concludes that the available sites within the SUE should be actively promoted to these businesses to ensure both that they remain within the local area and also to ensure that the employment sites develop come early critical mass.

24.8 In order to ensure deliverability of the employment area, particularly given officer concerns regarding the location of the employment land, the S106 requires the following; • The marketing of the employment land from commencement of development until the occupation of the last dwelling constructed on the development;

• Ensuring that the land is serviced in readiness for construction of employment uses;

• Setting aside the employment land for employment uses until the last dwellings to be constructed has been occupied;

• Reasonable endeavours obligations to agree sale of freehold or leasehold terms on the employment site or any part of it subject to expressions of interests being made by interested parties.

24.9 In conclusion, the NPPF places significant weight on the need to support sustainable economic growth through the planning system and states that to help achieve economic growth local planning authorities should plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21 st century. Overall it is considered that the employment development proposed would achieve this and provide significant economic benefits contributing to the provision of deliverable employment land and therefore would be in accordance with Policy 3 of the Core Strategy, draft Policy 21 of the emerging AAP and the overarching intentions of the NPPF.

25. EDUCATION

25.1 In accordance with Policy 3 of the Core Strategy and the emerging AAP draft Policy 22 a primary school and associated play pitches is proposed within the Neighbourhood Centre.

25.2 The proposed housing would provide a pupil yield of 600 primary places which necessitates both on site provision (a site of 1.93ha in order to construct a 2 form entry new primary school including all indoor and outdoor facilities) and off site provision (a contribution). It is anticipated that a contribution in the order of £1,318,792 (dependent on housing numbers) will be required. The £1.3m is for both off-site and on-site mitigation i.e. places required by extension of existing schools and the cost of the new school.

25.3 Whilst discussions are still on going with regards to the S106 agreement, it is likely to contain a clause restricting the opening of the school until part way through the development to reduce the risk of pupils from some distance away from the development gaining places in the early years of development at the expense of local children. Officers aim to ensure that pupils living within the new development have the opportunity to attend the new primary school. The developers will however still need to make payments (contribution) early within the development construction period in order to provide additional pupil spaces by providing new additional classrooms and a withdrawal space at the schools serving the development (Newlands Primary School, Barwell Infant School and Barwell Junior School).

25.4 With regards to secondary provision, the assessment of this contribution is still progressing due to issues of equalisation between Barwell SUE and other sites in HBBC and Blaby DC areas.

25.5 There is no sufficient capacity to meet all of the places generated by both Barwell and Earl Shilton SUE at the nearest high and upper schools (The Heathfield Academy and William Bradford). The final equalisation arrangements will result in the number of existing spaces that can be ‘allocated’ to Barwell SUE. Above that existing capacity allocation, a contribution per pupil place will be secured which is expected to be in the order of £4,451,166 for high school places and £1,431,702 for upper school pupil places.

25.6 The provision of capital funding and construction/contribution of a primary school and capital funding for secondary education forms part of the S106 Agreement.

26. URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

26.1 This is an outline application that seeks the approval of the principle of development and access only. Accordingly, the details of layout and design are reserved for subsequent approval. Notwithstanding this point, the application is submitted with a master plan and parameters plans which provide an example as to how the site could be developed in accordance with its constraints and the findings and recommendations of the applicable chapters of the Environmental Statement.

26.2 The master plan has been developed in consultation with key stakeholders including Leicestershire County Council, the Highways Agency, the Environment Agency, Natural England, English Heritage and a range of officers within the Council. .

26.3 The main design principles are set out in the master plan and the Design and Access Statement, parameter plans and the planning statement. The parameter plans detail

the developable areas of the site and set a series of scale parameters that any development within that area will not exceed and include: • Access and movement

• Land use

• Open space

• Building heights

• Density

26.4 The parameter plans provide a logical methodology to which the master plan development can be delivered against and as such provides a framework that the development and therefore any reserved matters applications should adhere to. The plans have been prepared alongside the findings of the various chapters of the Environmental Statement and as such take account of the sites topography and natural constraints and are heavily influences by the submitted visual impact assessment.

26.5 The Building Heights Parameters Plan indicates that the majority of the residential buildings will be ‘up to 11.5m’. Along key edges, for example the section to the south east of Stapleton and to the south west of the application site along Ashby Road, residential buildings will be ‘up to 10m’ in order to limit the visual impact of the development upon key views from the surrounding area. Within the community hub, buildings will be ‘up to 15m’ in order to provide a sense of place and provide a focus for the development. 5 key areas are identified for landmark buildings/features.

26.6 With regards to the urban structure, the access and movement routes are well structured with a central spine road connecting the hub, housing, employment and sport facilities. There is a hierarchy of smaller roads leading off the main spine which is good urban design practice. It will be important to keep the four access points proposed to ensure permeability of the new development. The block structure of the housing areas reinforces the permeable structure and there is an emphasis on east- west movements and views. The pedestrian and cycle routes are considered to be well thought out and utilise existing Public Rights of Way.

26.7 In summary the masterplan provides a robust development structure which has the potential to deliver a well-planned new community.

26.8 The parameter plans submitted as part of the application generally follow the disposition of land uses contained within the development framework contained in the emerging AAP draft Policy 19. There are however three areas where the proposed masterplan differs from Figure 17: Barwell Urban Extension Development Framework within the emerging AAP, these are: i. The lack of set back from the A447 just south of Stapleton Lane

ii. The lack of employment frontage to the A447

iii. The area of land adjacent to the southern end of Stapleton Lane that is not included within the red line boundary of the application (including Carousel Park and land in the control of Jervis equating to approx. 7.6ha of the total site area of 136.2ha)

26.9 Points 1 and 2 have been addressed within the ‘Landscape and Visual Impact’ and ‘Employment’ sections of the report. Point 3 in relation to land ownership is outside the control of the developer and consequently the developer is unable to include the land as part of the application due to the inability to deliver development on this land. Officers are satisfied with the justification that has been provided.

26.10 Whilst the details of the development are reserved, there are no identified constraints to achieving a development that could function well, be safe and accessible and be of a high quality. In particular, the Design and Access Statement allows for the creation of a development with a strong sense of place, incorporating high quality architecture and materials. The Design and Access Statement provides an indication of character areas and gives an indication of form, materials and design.

26.11 In order to secure the delivery of appropriate design solutions when reserved matters are submitted, a planning condition is recommended that requires the illustrative design and layout principles in the Parameter Plans and Design and Access Statement to be adhered and requires detailed masterplans for each development to support the detailed design of the reserved matters applications. A condition requiring the submission of a ‘Design Code’ to be approved by the Borough Planning Authority is also recommended. This approach would set a design blueprint for future development and is considered the most appropriate way of securing a high quality design framework which subsequent applications must adhere to.

27. AIR QUALITY

27.1 An assessment of the likely impact of the proposed development on local air quality is included within Chapter 15 of the submitted Environmental Statement (ES). It considers the potential effects of construction and operation of the development and considers the suitability of the site for residential development.

27.2 HBBC have not declared any Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and as such air quality within Barwell is currently good. The predicted nitrogen dioxide concentrations at existing receptors in the surrounding area are below the air quality objectives.

27.3 The construction works have the potential to create dust. During construction it will therefore be necessary to apply a package of mitigation measures to minimise the potential for dust annoyance and elevated Particulate Matter (PM10) concentrations. A condition is recommended which requires the applicant to submit a Construction Environmental Management Plan.

27.4 Even with the Construction Environmental Management Plan in place there remains a risk that a number of existing off-site properties might be affected by occasional impacts. Any effects will be temporary and relatively short lived and will only arise during dry weather with the wind blowing towards a receptor, at a time when dust is being generated and mitigations measures are not being fully effective. The overall impacts during construction are however judged to be minor adverse.

27.5 On the basis that predicted concentrations of all pollutants are below the relevant air quality objectives or limit values, it is concluded that air quality does not provide any constraints to the delivery of the proposed development.

27.6 In summary, subject to the imposition of planning conditions it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with Saved Policy NE2 of the Local Plan and the overarching intentions of the NPPF.

28. NOISE

28.1 An assessment of the likely impact of the proposed development on the noise and vibration climate of the area is included within Chapter 16 of the submitted Environmental Statement (ES).

28.2 The report confirms that it is reasonably likely that construction activities, particularly with regards to levels of vibration, may have some impact on nearby residents but that this can be controlled and maintained within acceptable levels through a Construction Environmental Management Plan. This will (for example):

• Ensure the use of quiet working methods, the most suitable plant and reasonable hours or working for noisy operations, where reasonably practicable;

• Locate noisy plant and equipment as far away from houses as reasonably possible and where practical carry out loading and unloading in these areas;

• Screen plant to reduce noise which cannot be reduced by increasing the distance between the source and the receiver (i.e. by installing noisy plant and equipment behind large site buildings);

• Shut down any machines that work intermittently or throttling them back to a minimum;

• Orientate plant that is known to emit noise strongly in one direction so that the noise is directed away from houses, where possible;

• Close acoustic covers to engines when they are in use or idling; and

• Lower materials slowly, wherever practicable, and not dropping them.

28.3 Some of the proposed dwellings will also be affected by noise from road traffic on the existing highway network. The impact of noise on the occupiers of new homes can however be maintained within acceptable levels by careful design. Thus land directly adjacent to Stapleton Lane and Ashby Road will be developed so that, no houses have gardens that face directly onto the road; they will instead be located behind the dwellings that are built. This will ensure that the gardens are attenuated from the road noise source and will be below the outdoor criterion of 55dB(A).

28.4 The ES also recommends a range of other mitigation (see table 16.15 of Chapter 16 of the ES). These will be secured by the imposition of conditions.

28.5 In conclusion, the design of this outline planning application has taken into account the site constraints from noise. Issues relating to noise arising from the completed development and during construction can be satisfactorily controlled through the use of appropriately worded planning conditions. In that event it is considered that the scheme will accord with Saved Policy NE2 of the Local Plan.

29. DRAINAGE AND FLOOD RISK

29.1 Chapter 13 of the submitted Environmental Statement contains a Flood Risk Assessment for the application site and the proposed development.

29.2 The nature of flood risk associated with the Tweed River and its tributary and the Thurlaston Brook tributary has been assessed by developing a hydraulic model using topographical survey of the watercourse corridors collected in September 2011. The modelling analysis indicates that some small areas of the site lie within the 100 and 1000 year floodplains. The floodplain is however generally limited to a relatively narrow corridor of land, such that 95% of the site lies within an area classified as being at the lowest risk of flooding. The most notable areas of floodplain are generally associated with Abraham’s Bridge and the culvert beneath the former landfill, both of which serve to restrict flood flows, thereby raising flood levels along the reach upstream. 29.3 In accordance with national planning policy, the master plan ‘makes space’ for the floodplain and incorporates a ‘green corridor’ alongside the watercourses. Built infrastructure is therefore located outside the 100 year floodplain. This in turn facilitates the retention of a strategic route for recreation along the River Tweed.

29.4 A number of local residents have raised concerns with the potential of future flooding particularly given that there has been examples of recent flooding within/adjacent to the site. The Environment Agency is aware of existing problems with the ordinary watercourse (tributary of the Tweed Brook) as it crosses the Hinckley Road south to north. The EA are dealing with this issue separately however they have confirmed that the downstream improvements to the culvert trash screens proposed as part of the application should reduce flood risk to their gardens.

29.5 Severn Trent Water has also advised that there are currently downstream sewer flooding issues in Barwell under prolonged heavy rainfall events. This problem has been partially controlled by the restriction of pumping from the Stapleton Lane Pumping Station through the Barwell gravity system to Earl Shilton Sewage Treatment Works. To address the existing issues Severn Trent have advised they are finalising a planned upgrade of the Stapleton Lane Sewage Pumping Station and to then pump foul water flows to Hinckley STW via a new rising main. This will be routed down the eastern boundary of application site towards Hinckley Road. This planned upgrade will be completed by the end of 2014 and Severn Trent have confirmed that the upgrade scheme allows for future planned growth in Barwell including the proposed development.

29.6 The Environment Agency, Severn Trent Water and the Head of Community Services (Land Drainage) have all considered the application and the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. Between the consultees there is consensus of opinion and they are satisfied that the level of detail submitted with the outline planning application is appropriate to address flood risk and surface water drainage matters. If planning permission is granted, the Environment Agency has stated that it requires the imposition of detailed conditions to prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site and also to secure the replacement of existing upstream and downstream trash/security screens to the Tweed Brook culvert under the historic landfill site. 29.7 In summary, subject to the imposition of planning conditions it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with Saved Policy NE14 of the Local Plan and the overarching intentions of the NPPF.

30. ECOLOGY

30.1 The Environmental Statement includes the assessment of the nature conservation interests of the site and its surroundings and as part of the assessment the following surveys have been undertaken: • Extended Phase 1 Survey

• Phase 2 Survey

• Breeding Birds Survey

• Hobby Survey

• Bat Surveys

• Badger Survey

• Water Vole Survey

• Reptile Survey

• Great Crested Newt Survey

30.2 Impact on Protected Species

30.3 The NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment and sets out a number of principles to achieve this. This includes minimising impacts on biodiversity, providing net gains where possible and preventing new development from contributing to pollution or land instability.

30.4 The submitted ecology report identifies the presence of bats and badgers within the application site. In terms of bats, the majority of bats recorded during the surveys were found to be common pipistrelle however soprrango pipstrelle and a single serotine bat was also recorded. It is recommended that the landscape planting scheme should include species of value to foraging bats along with native species within the open space and attenuation areas, locate bat boxes within the development and ensure the lighting does not increase lighting levels onto the boundary habitat features that are currently used by the local bat population. This information and proposed mitigation will be secured by way of condition.

30.5 In terms of badgers only low levels of activity were recorded throughout the site. The ES recommends the monitoring of existing and old setts for any new activity. These sites will be retained with a suitable scrub/landscape planting buffer within the development. It is recommend that due to the relatively long timescales of the development, along with the unpredictable population dynamics of badger groups, the site is monitored with regard to badger activity. It is also recommended that a Ecological Management Plan be submitted which would incorporate measures for the establishment and maintenance of the proposed biodiversity corridors which would benefit badgers by providing additional foraging habitat and maintaining connectivity between off-site foraging areas. This will be secured by way of condition.

30.6 The survey found no evidence of water voles within the water bodies of the site. Despite this, it is recommended that the water bodies are retained and enhanced as water voles have been recorded in the area and are currently re-establishing populations within the UK. The Ecological Appraisal Report recommends that the larger ditches and streams within the site undergo management in order to create a more suitable habitat for water voles and other wildlife. Bank profiling, the creation of pools and the introduction of key grass and marginal aquatic species will improve the diversity of this habitat and therefore attract a wider range of riparian species.

30.7 The brown hare is a UK BAP Priority Species due to significant declines in their populations which is ongoing. They are considered ‘uncommon’ in Leicestershire and

Rutland although records suggest they are relatively widespread across the country. As a farmland species, the population of brown hare on site is likely to be adversely affected by the development proposals.

30.8 It is considered that the site will continue to support a population of hedgehogs following the implantation of the development proposals. However, due to the change of land use it is likely that the population will be smaller. Despite this, the retention of the majority of the hedgerows network and the retention of acres such as Little Fields Farm Meadow Local Wildlife Site, along with the creation of new grassland and woodland habitats, will allow the continued movement of hedgehogs through the site. The report concludes that the development proposals will not have a significant effect on the local hedgehog population.

30.9 No reptiles were recorded on site during the survey work however the report recommends that in light of the proximity of grass snakes records and the suitability of some areas of habitat on site, a precautionary approach should be taken during construction to avoid any accidental killing or injury of reptiles that may have gone unrecorded.

30.10 Finally, although the survey did not identify great crested newts within any of the ponds, the site does support common toads and common frogs. Therefore the potential for the site to support an amphibian community should be retained through the development proposals. The report recommends that ponds be retained and enhanced wherever possible through clearing and tree/shrub removal to reduce shading. Pond creation either as part of the SUDS strategy or otherwise should be incorporated into the design, particularly when they are able to be linked or close to existing ditches or ponds.

30.11 Natural England and the Director of Environment and Transport (LCC Ecology) have been consulted on the Environmental Statement. They raised no objection to the scheme’s impact on protected species subject to the imposition of conditions to secure appropriate mitigation of the potential impacts set out in the ES.

30.12 Impact on the Local Wildlife Site

30.13 There is a Local Wildlife Site (LWS) within the site which is known as Little Fields Farm Meadow. Planning Ecology at Leicestershire County Council originally raised an objection to the scheme as the full extent to the LWS was not recognised, protected or observed. Extensive negotiation has been carried out between the developers and LCC which has resulted in additional information being submitted. This includes: • Tweed Park being renamed Tweed River Corridor with amendments made to landscape specifications to reflect the more naturalistic character required for this area;

• The illustrative design more closely reflects the existing vegetation within and surrounding the LWS;

• The proposals for tree and shrub planting with the LWS have been removed. Existing hedges will be reinforced where necessary and an additional fence will be provided on the northern boundary to prevent informal access points being created;

• Wildflower meadows (including both neutral and marshy grassland) are proposed for a 10m buffer corridor to the LWS;

• Minor amendments to the housing zone layout have been made to allow for the provision of the landscape buffer zone. This allows for a reduced housing zone to the immediate north of the LWS and a slightly enlarged housing zone to the east of the LWS;

• A minor amendments to the north western edge of the hub and primary school zones to allow for the provision of a buffer to the north of the LWS; and

• The number of crossings over the section of the Tweed running east-west has been reduced to two, which are in addition to the main vehicular crossings.

30.14 Following the submission of the above information LCC Ecology withdrew their objection. The scheme proposes to retain and protect Little Field Farm Meadow LWS through the creation of habitat buffers on all sides to minimise disturbance. Once the development is completed and occupied there is potential for direct trampling and degradation effects on the LWS through increases in visitor usage. The ES however proposes mitigation measures to reduce any potential ecological impacts and these will be contained within the Ecological Management Plan which will be secured by condition.

30.15 The ES concludes that the surveys undertaken in the summer of 2011 indicate that that habitats and species present within the site are generally considered to be either of low/negligible intrinsic ecological significance in their own right, being composed of common and widespread species. None of the habitats or species present within the site are considered to be Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs) within the impact assessment with the exception of the unimproved grassland within Little Fields Farm Meadow Local Wildlife Site which is considered to be a County Level VER and is assessed separately. Based on the findings of the surveys, the following recommendations are made: • Retain and protect Little Fields Meadow Local Wildlife Site through the creation of habitat buffers on all sides to minimise disturbance;

• Retain notable habitat features, namely the hedgerow network and boundary features of the site wherever possible and make a feature of this habitat within the design of the site;

• The tree removal should be undertaken in accordance with best practice guidance for ‘soft felling’ if bat potential is noted and any trees removed should be compensated for by at least 2:1 replacement planting within the design;

• Retain and improve the gappy, species-poor hedgerows and manage using traditional hedgerow management techniques;

• Include species within the landscape planting scheme that are of value to foraging bats along with native species within the open space and attenuation areas;

• Retain and enhance the two small ponds within the site by decreasing shading and increasing the area of the drawdown zone;

• Create additional aquatic and marginal habitats within the scheme design through the inclusion of SUDS design;

• Locate bat boxes within the development in order to maintain the current potential of the site for roosting bats;

• Ensure the lighting design does not increase the lighting levels onto the boundary habitat features that are currently used by the local bat population; and

• Ensure the stand of Japanese knotweed is identified on constraints maps and will not be disturbed by any of the proposed proposals.

30.16 The objections received concerning the impact on wildlife relate mainly to the perceived loss of wildlife habitat. The impact on protected species has been considered and appropriately mitigated and the remaining wildlife interest will be further enhanced and supported through the extensive programme of landscaping and provision of green spaces.

30.17 In summary, subject to the imposition of planning conditions it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with Saved Policy NE12 of the Local Plan and the overarching intentions of the NPPF.

31. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

31.1 The emerging AAP draft Policy 23 states that ‘the development of the urban extension will include provision for a variety of open spaces within an overarching green infrastructure network, as indicated on the Development Framework, providing recreation opportunities, sustainable drainage systems, biodiversity enhancement and a strong landscape framework. The development will retain key landscape features and strategic footpaths that cross the site, to ensure access from Barwell to the countryside.’

31.2 In order to ensure the success of a new neighbourhood which responds and relates to the local environment a Green Infrastructure Plan has been submitted with the application which includes outline proposals for the overall management of the green infrastructure. This includes: • Retain existing landscape assets – ensuring the development responds to ecologically valued and visually beneficial existing landscape assets including hedgerows, mature hedgerow trees, individual trees, waterways and the local undulating topography.

• Provide purposeful and functional open spaces – at a range of scales and for a range of users ensuring a landscape network which benefits the new community.

• Preserve a green corridor along the Tweed River Valley – creating a liner park at the heart of the proposed scheme reinforcing links from the centre of Barwell to the wider countryside along the Tweed Valley.

• Create two new parks to help bind existing and new communities – the parks provide social facilities such as sports pitches, play facilities, grow space for the adjacent communities and wetlands, as well as consolidating existing and proposed public green spaces into the wider green network.

• Food – throughout the development establish spaces for community food production

• Attenuation – provides a network of swales and meadows to aid water attenuation

• Enhance local ecology – through providing new and enhancing existing wetlands, mature hedgerow trees, waterways and meadows.

31.3 The landscape structure of the proposed new community has been carefully considered to provide a range of interlinked routes and spaces with distinctive character and functions. Together with the proposed network of tree lined routes these parks, squares and linear green spaces will create a legible landscape delivering a strong sense of place within the new community.

31.4 Subject to the imposition of planning conditions and appropriate obligations secured in a S106 agreement to deliver the necessary implementation, creation and management of green infrastructure, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with Policy 20 of the Core Strategy, emerging AAP draft Policy 23 and the overarching intentions of the NPPF.

32. TREES, LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT

32.1 An Arboricultural Assessment was carried out, the result of which are contained within Volume 3a: Appendices of the Environmental Statement. The survey recorded a total of 174 individual trees, 59 groups of trees and 63 hedgerows, totalling 296 items. A total of 163 Ash (36.9%) and 32 Oak (7.2%) predominate across the site as standard trees whilst a further 83 Hawthorn (18.8%) and 59 Blackthorn (13.3%) populate the hedgerows.

32.2 The assessment identified a total of 40 surveyed items fall beneath the development footprint and will be lost as a direct consequence of the proposals. A further 16 ‘R’ grade items should be removed for reasons of sound arboricultural management.

32.3 The losses associated with the proposal area offset by a range of benefits which will flow from the redevelopment of the site: • The implementation of necessary pruning to secure good tree form and health; and

• New tree planting of appropriate, locally indigenous species in certain area to diversify the age-class distribution on site.

32.4 A planning condition will be imposed to ensure that the recommendations outlined in Section 3.16 of the ‘Findings of Arboricultural Assessment’ Annex EDP10 (report T_EDP1438_06) are followed.

32.5 An issue has been raised with the indicative location of the main route (road) corridor through the site as this punctures through an established landscape belt. On balance, given the overall level of additional tree planting in this location it is not considered that the loss of trees, in order to accommodate the road, is significant and officers are satisfied with the routing of the road.

32.6 The proposed development will significantly alter the character of the surrounding area and by the very nature of its scale will be clearly visible from all directions.

32.7 The application site is designated as Open Countryside containing a number of agricultural buildings. The site is not subject to any statutory landscape designations such as Areas of Outstanding Beauty (AONB) or Green Belt.

32.8 Reference has been made elsewhere in this report to the impact that the development will have and the proposed mitigation on the setting of the Barwell

House Listed Building. In summary it is considered that the proposed development will not a significant adverse impact upon the setting of the listed building.

32.9 Parameter plans have been submitted with application which seek to define the development and fix the overreaching key principles of the development. The six plans detail: • Masterplan - Defining the application site and indicative layout of the site.

• Land Use - Setting out the land uses across the site

• Access and Movement - Setting out the position and form of the site access points including vehicular and pedestrian.

• Building Heights - Setting out height limits with reference to the proposed development uses.

• Open Space - Setting out the strategic landscape and open space

• Density Plan - Setting 3 zones of density levels

32.10 To assist with the legibility of the site, five character areas or ‘conditions’ have been defined within the Design and Access Statement. The area south of the junction of Stapleton Lane/A447 has been defined as a ‘core’ area. This is summarised as a comparatively dense and more urban part of the development that contains the community hub and associated mix of non residential uses. The Urban Form Plan (figure 7.1 in the Design and Access Statement) illustrates this parcel of land as having a landscape frontage in order to minimise visual impact of the development when travelling south from Stapleton. Given that this parcel of land is defined as a ‘core’ area it is a reasonable approach to have development fronting the A447 however the set back does allow for an access road to be constructed in front of dwellings to ensure that dwellings are not immediately fronting the A447.

32.11 Views on the construction of residential development within ‘green field’ locations will differ. It is acknowledged that the effects will generally be perceived negatively by those regarding the development from surrounding locations or living close by and who may be resistant to change in the area. It should also be acknowledged that those people seeking housing and affordable accommodation in the area may have different opinion and will likely perceive the development in a more positive light.

32.12 The landscape and visual impact assessment demonstrates that the development will result in the following: a. In terms of landscape character, in a change of moderate/minor or minor/negligible significance by year 15; and

b. In terms of visual amenity for the 7 verified viewpoints agreed with HBBC, a change of no worse than moderate adverse will be experienced by year 15 of operation.

32.13 Members of the public have raised concerns with the loss of countryside and as a consequence of this the loss of agricultural production. This has to be balanced against the need to provide the identified amount of development, the regeneration of Barwell, and the sustainability of the site and the potential loss of agricultural land in another location.

32.14 To ensure that visual impact of the development is controlled and to allow for a master plan concept to be delivered, the parameter plans and master plan will be subject to a planning condition to ensure that the subsequent phases and accompanying reserved matters approvals supported by more detailed masterplans for each phase are delivered in accordance with them. Officers are satisfied that the submitted scheme corresponds with both the proposed boundary of the allocation contained in the emerging AAP and also the proposed land uses for the SUE contained within the emerging AAP. 33. CULTURAL HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY

33.1 The application site is not located in a sensitive area however the Archaeological Assessment states that two possible enclosures, identified on the western boundary of the site, could be of prehistoric date. Whilst the significance of these enclosures has yet to be established, they are certainly of archaeological interest. It is likely that the land within the application site boundary was undeveloped and subject to agricultural exploitation from at least the Middle Ages. The analysis of aerial photographs has identified widespread ridge and furrow cultivation throughout the site. The Ordnance Survey identifies the site of Richard III’s encampment, prior to the Battle of Bosworth Field’s, beyond the western edge of the site. However despite the close proximity of the encampment, there is no evidence to suggest that it has any functional, visual or aesthetic relationship with the Registered Battlefield to the north west.

33.2 Given the available evidence, it is considered that the site has some potential for the survival of previously unrecorded heritage assets of the prehistoric period in the north. It is also acknowledged that Roman period archaeological remains have been identified in the west of the site and medieval fishpond in the south. However, it is likely that the vast majority of the site is of low archaeological potential and has been subject to the agricultural exploitation from at least the Middle Ages.

33.3 Both the County archaeologist and English Heritage are satisfied that the archaeological investigation that has been carried out has provided enough evidence to ensure the use of planning conditions to require further work to ensure sufficient protection of archaeological remains.

33.4 In accordance with advice from English Heritage, a condition is proposed to retain the historic hedgerows and extant ridge and furrow earthworks.

33.5 In summary the scheme is not considered to have any significant detrimental impact upon archaeological sites of importance and is therefore in accordance with Saved Policy BE14 of the Local Plan and the overarching intentions of the NPPF.

33.6 Listed Buildings

33.7 Barwell House Farm is a Grade II Listed Building which lies within the application site. The impact of the proposed development on the setting of the building is a material consideration. The setting of Barwell House Farm adds to the significance of its designation as a heritage asset. The building being a farm has always stood isolated from nearby buildings, in a rural setting of fields, mature trees and hedgerows.

33.8 The main frontage of the farm faces the Ashby Road and it is views of the building from this route which it is particularly important to retain. When travelling southwards from Stapleton along the Ashby Road, the road takes several turns and as it passes the entrance to Bosworth House Farm, views begin to occur of the roof and then the

main frontage of the farmhouse. These glimpses continue until the road is adjacent to the property and when added together, these views give a clear picture of the farmhouse in its setting.

33.9 The proposal as originally proposed materially impacted upon the setting of the listed building and as such in consultation with HBBC Conservation Officer and the applicants it was proposed to modify the masterplan. An area originally proposed for residential development between Bosworth House Farm and Barwell House Farm, adjacent to Ashby Road, has been amended and is now reserved for landscaping and greenspace. No built development is proposed in this area. It is considered that this amendment successfully mitigates the impact of the development upon the setting of the listed building and that the development has taken the setting of this important heritage asset into account.

33.10 In summary, careful consideration has been taken of the setting of Barwell House Farm and as such it does not represent an in principle constraint. The scheme is not considered to have any significant detrimental impact upon the setting of Barwell House Farm and is therefore in accordance with Saved Policy BE5 of the Local Plan and the overarching intentions of the NPPF.

34. OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION

34.1 The application provides a total of 26.56 ha of open space consisting of the following:

34.2 Informal (un-equipped) Children’s Play Space – The application proposes 4.20 ha to be provided. These spaces will surround equipped children’s play space and other parts of the site to provide for more informal types of play not requiring equipment in proximity to residential areas. This accords with Policy 19 of the Core Strategy.

34.3 Informal Equipped Children’s Play Space – The application proposes 0.9ha to be provided. This includes 4 Locally Equipped Areas of Play (LEAP) and 1 Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play (NEAP). These have been located so that all residential properties are within a 400 metre walking distance of a play area. The NEAP is centrally located and adjacent to the community hub thereby maximising accessibility to all residents. This accords with Policy 19 of the Core Strategy.

34.4 Outdoor Sports Provision – The application proposes this to be located north of Stapleton Lane and west of Kirkby Road and consists of 7ha. The requirement under Policy 19 of the Core Strategy is for 9.6ha to be provided. Therefore, when strictly compared against Policy 19 of the Core Strategy the proposed development does not accord with the Development Plan policies. However, the under provision of this particular open space typology is a direct response to the public consultation process and the request that pitch provision is not made behind the existing residential properties along Hinckley Road. Provision of outdoor sport provision could possibly be further enhanced through shared use of the proposed Primary School playing fields. It is important to note (as has been mentioned elsewhere in this report) that dual use cannot be guaranteed and consequently should not be taken into account as a means to mitigate the deficiency.

34.5 Natural Green Space – The application proposes 14.46ha be provided which exceeds the requirements of Policy 19 of the Core Strategy. This is distributed in 4 main areas: in a linear corridor along the Tweed River, east-west and north-south; the western and northern edges of the site north of Stapleton Lane; to the rear of existing properties along Hinckley Road; and in a linear corridor following Ashby Road to the south of Stapleton Lane. Natural Green Space has been proposed in these locations

to maintain hedgerows and public rights of way, provide flood attenuation and sustainable drainage and mitigate the visual impact of the development on surrounding areas.

34.6 In addition, 25% of the Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and 15% of the attenuation areas are counted as contributing towards the open space requirements by virtue of their ability to serve a dual function and as such counts towards Policy 19 requirements.

34.7 0.71 ha of allotment space has also been provided as part of the proposal which is located to the north of existing residential properties along Hinckley Road. Whilst this does not formally contribute to the open space provision as required by Policy 19 of the Core Strategy, it further increases the functional open space provided within the development for the benefit of residents.

34.8 The overall estimate of commuted maintenance sums expected will be in the order of £4,174,560 (excluding the cost of the pavilion). The actual maintenance sum will be determined following relevant Reserved Matters Approvals and scheme approvals having been achieved to confirm the specifications and quantum of open space. Barwell Parish Council has confirmed their commitment to take on the maintenance of play/open space. If for any reason this is not the case then HBBC will take on maintenance and it will not be transferred to a private management company.

34.9 A pavilion building will be provided alongside the outdoor sports pitches. It is estimated the cost of providing this building will be £500,000. The S106 will provide for its construction and will set minimum size specification for the building. The pavilion is essentially ancillary to the sports pitches and will provide changing rooms to support the use of the outdoor sports pitches. For clarification, this is distinct from the indoor sports facilities requirement which seeks to secure predominately indoor sports and leisure facilities.

34.10 Cemetery - Questions have been raised regarding the provision of a cemetery within the application site however there are no policies within the development plan which would require a cemetery to be provided. The Play and Open Space SPD states that ‘in some parts of the Borough local churchyards and cemeteries serve an important role for quiet informal recreation, and are especially important in settlements where there are no other public green spaces. In these circumstances it may be appropriate for the Borough Council to seek to use developer contributions towards the enhancement of such spaces.’ Options to provide a cemetery within existing green spaces within the development are limited, as a cemetery must not cause ground water contamination and needs to comply with 2 tiers of risk assessments by the Environment Agency. As such all the open spaces alongside water courses and within the floodplains are unlikely to be suitable. This leaves the pitch area which officers would not want to lose given the fact the proposed development under provides as regards sports pitches or the area of public open space at the south of the development between the Hinckley Road properties and the employment land. The latter is close to residential and employment and would have access difficulties as it is lies to the rear of residential properties with only pedestrian access available and is consequently not suitable. From discussions between officers and representatives of Barwell Parish Council it appears that the PC are looking at various options to secure land outside of the SUE application site for additional cemetery provision in the future.

34.11 In summary, whilst there is a slight under provision with regards to outdoor sports pitches (2.60ha), the development provides an over provision with regards to natural green space (2.46ha) and as such officers consider that on balance the proposals

seek to provide a significant contribution to the provision of a variety of new open space for new and existing residents. Furthermore there is no legitimate policy basis for securing developer contributions towards the provision of a cemetery.

35. INDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES

35.1 Policy 3 of the Core Strategy refers to the potential for a new leisure facility and sporting hub on land off the A47 in the vicinity of Hinckley United Football Stadium supported by sustainable public transport links including enhanced walking and cycling connections from Barwell, Earl Shilton, Hinckley and Burbage.

35.2 In accordance with the Core Strategy, draft Policy 6 of the emerging AAP also sets out a requirement for contributions towards the new sport and leisure hub on land off the A47. This would need to be appropriate to the scale of the population increase from the application.

35.3 The Sporting Needs Report prepared by RPT Consulting (November 2012) and Sport England comments both highlight the demand for sports facilities over and above outdoor provision which will be created by the development. For example, demand will be generated for the use of indoor facilities including sports halls and swimming pools. If this demand is not adequately met then it may place additional pressure of existing sports facilities, thereby creating deficiencies in facility provision. Existing provision in Hinckley and Bosworth is sufficient at present to support the needs of the population but will not support any future growth in population. The Sports Facility Calculator suggests additional space requirements for Barwell and Earl Shilton of:

83.28 - 89.95sqm of pool space

2.37 – 2.56 badminton court of Sport Hall space

0.24 – 0.26 Synthetic Turf Pitches

0.65 – 0.70 indoor bowling rinks

35.4 Whilst there may be potential to locate some new indoor sporting facilities within Barwell, it is not considered to be economical to build in isolation 2 lane swimming pool in order to mitigate the impact of the development as summarised above. It would be more economical to look at the strategic provision of the services. Pooling of contributions would allow a proportionate contribution to address the impact of the development. The NPPF and Regulation 123 of the CIL Regulations acknowledge that pooling of contributions is a practice that continues to be relevant and lawful in the pre-CIL world (or up to April 2014).

35.5 With regards to strategic provision, there are just two public Leisure Centre facilities that serves the population for Hinckley and Bosworth. (Hinckley Leisure Centre and Bosworth College) that incorporate a range of facilities including swimming pools of a 25m scale. The catchment population of each facility varies with some Ward populations more likely to use one or other facility, whereas some Ward populations being equidistant from the two facilities may use both facilities.

35.6 The build costs for construction of a new leisure centre were estimated in May 2012 by Baqus to be £7.1m including land costs. This is based on providing a ‘like for like’ replacement facility purely to address existing demands, rather than accommodate increased demand from population growth. To provide the additional facilities to cope with the growth in population costs are estimated to be circa £9m. The estimated

range of contribution for this proposal is between £461,185 and £635,850 (depending upon the mix of accommodation across the site). The final contribution that is to be made will be calculated in accordance with the formula as set out in the agreement.

35.7 The contribution will be used for the purposes of building new indoor sports and recreational facilities or expansion to existing indoor sports and leisure facilities in the Barwell, Earl Shilton, Hinckley and Burbage Urban Area that serves or will serve the residents of the Development. It is proposed that the Hinckley Urban Area will be defined by reference to a plan or other suitable mechanism within the s106.

35.8 In summary, subject to the imposition of planning obligations in a s106 agreement it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with Policy 3 of the Core Strategy, Draft Policy 6 of the emerging AAP and the overarching intentions of the NPPF.

36. NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE

36.1 Draft Policy 22 of the emerging AAP states that ‘a community hub will be provided to the west of the crossing of the urban extension spine road and Stapleton Lane. The Community Hub will provide; a new primary school and children’s centre; limited local convenience retail provision; recreational facilities;community meeting and function rooms; health facilities (if a location in or close to Barwell cannot be secured); and facilities for neighbourhood policing.’

36.2 The Neighbourhood Centre will comprise a mix of retail and community uses integrated with adjacent residential units and designed not to compete with the centre of Barwell. The application proposes that the Neighbourhood Centre shall provide: • A new primary school (Use Class D1) and associated sports pitch;

• A local health care facility (if required) (Use Class D1) or, in the alternative, a family public house/restaurant (Use Classes A3/A4); and

• Local retail and commercial units (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5) up to a maximum floorspace of 1,000square metres.

• Community meeting and function rooms – with potential for new Parish Council offices.

36.3 A proportion of the residential uses within the Neighbourhood Centre could be located above the retail component. The developers propose the retail component to provide up to 1000sqm (gross internal area) including a 300sqm retail store and a series of smaller shops to meet everyday convenience needs of the new community. The overall aim of the SUE is to provide regeneration to Barwell village centre and therefore officers do not want the Neighbourhood Centre within the SUE to compete with the retail offering within Barwell village centre. Officers have concerns that permitting 1000sqm of retail floorspace could allow a single retail unit of this size which would compete with and detract from business to existing retail units in Barwell village centre.

36.4 Officers have therefore considered whether it would be appropriate to limit the size of the retail unit to 250sqm or some other amount of floorspace. In the absence of any evidence that a particular size or format or retail unit would harm the vitality and viability of Barwell village centre they have concluded that it would not be reasonable to attach such a condition to the grant of planning permission

36.5 Together with the proposed primary school, land has also been identified for the provision of a doctor’s surgery within the Neighbourhood Centre should a site not become available in the centre of Barwell. Alternatively the land could be used for a 900 sqm ‘food based’ public house.

36.6 With regards to the proposed doctor’s surgery, provision will be included in the S106 to place reasonable endeavours on the owner to pursue the construction of a new doctor’s surgery on the Constitutional Club. Policy 3 of the Core Strategy requires the provision of GP facilities to meet the needs of the SUE with detailed requirements to be set out in the AAP.

36.7 The existing doctor’s surgery is rated ‘RED’ meaning that it is in ‘greatest need of development’. There is no spare capacity and the practice is planning to address both current and future requirements taking into account the SUE by constructing a new facility. A number of sites have been assessed for their suitability and the most suitable is the Constitutional Club. There will therefore be a pooling of both the PCT finances which take into account issues with current capacity and the contribution required from the development which addresses the requirements relating to the SUE. If no contract is concluded with the Constitutional Club, the Section 106 Agreement provides for the surgery to be provided elsewhere on the site. At the time of drafting the report the applicants have committed to submit a hybrid planning application on the Constitutional Club site involving a detailed scheme for the new constitutional club and an outline scheme for the doctors surgery (including the extension to take account of the impact of the development) before the report comes before Committee.

36.8 A clause in the S106 is proposed to ensure that marketing of the local centre will take place from occupation of the 900 th dwelling until the occupation of the last dwelling to be constructed on the development. The S106 will set out requirements for a marketing plan to be submitted and agreed prior to commencement of development and will also set out certain actions that will need to be incorporated within the marketing plan: • Setting aside the Neighbourhood Centre land for Neighbourhood Centre uses until the last dwelling to be constructed has been occupied;

• Reasonable endeavours obligations to agree sale of freehold or leasehold terms of the units within the neighbourhood centre or any part of it on reasonable commercial terms at reasonable rates

• The owner shall provide 6 monthly updates to HBBC on the detailing of the marketing

• The owner shall be placed under an obligation to lay out and complete such part of the neighbourhood centre to provide the community facility prior to occupation of the 800 th dwelling.

36.9 In summary, subject to the imposition of planning conditions and obligations within the S106 it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with Policy 3 of the Core Strategy, Draft Policy 22 of the emerging AAP and the overarching intentions of the NPPF.

37. COMMUNITY FACILITIES

37.1 Policy 3 of the Core Strategy supports the regeneration of Barwell village centre. The supporting text states that the SUE will act as a catalyst for the regeneration of Barwell, and as such, developers will be expected to contribute to existing facilities and the local centres of Barwell where appropriate.

37.2 The Earl Shilton and Barwell Community Buildings Development Potential report prepared by Greenborough highlights the appetite and potential to develop some of the community facilities within Earl Shilton and Barwell. The projects discussed in the report range from quite small scale plans to secure and improve existing facilities, through to ambitious extension and redevelopment proposals. The creation of the SUE in Barwell will bring significant population increase and create additional pressure on aging facilities. It would be logical to see this increased demand being met from within the existing settlements, encouraging the new residents to use existing facilities, thereby ensuring that the benefits of the SUE are felt by all. The report concludes that £185,000 be set aside to improve the following facilities;

37.3 Jubilee Hall – to provide: An additional building to the rear of the hall Disabled toilet provision Storage facilities Creating a lower level play area Environmental improvements.

37.4 Barwell Methodist Hall – to provide: A new toilet facility within a modest extension.

37.5 There is a need to regenerate the centre of Barwell first and therefore officers are seeking early delivery of the above improvements. The off site contribution will be paid prior to first occupation of any dwelling

37.6 There is also a requirement for on site community facilities; this is based on the requirement to provide 0.14sqm of community space per head of population. This is approximately 805sqm based on 2.3 residents per dwelling. The minimum recommended size of a multi-purpose community facility is 575sqm. As an off-site contribution will be provided an equivalent reduction in the maximum size of the on- site facility will be made such that the proposed arrangements accord with Regulation 122. This results in a maximum size of facility of 669.12sqm rather than 805sqm.

37.7 A detailed specification will be submitted to and approved for the community building prior to first occupation of any dwelling. A basic specification will be appended to the S106 itself. A minimum size of 575sqm will be specified in the S106. Prior to submission of the detailed specification for approval the owner shall consult with the Parish Council, community groups (including the Barwell Village Improvement Group) and hold community consultation events to ascertain what the key elements of community building would be based on the needs of the community as expressed by the Parish Council and the community. The actual size of the community building will accord with the needs of the community, but shall be no smaller than the 575sqm specified.

37.8 The community building will be sited in a location to be agreed within the development, which shall be located adjacent to the Neighbourhood Centre.

37.9 Police

37.10 A request for funding under S106 agreement has been submitted by the Police. The Neighbourhood Police Base is considered to be Regulation 122 compliant, the applicant has confirmed that it will fund this facility. 1.

37.11 It will be an equivalent to the provision of 43sqm of workspace. The actual quantum of the contribution will be set out in the s106 agreement and will be calculated based on a cost per sqm that will be specified in the s106. This is estimated to be £97,000. The cost per sqm will include elements for both land cost and works. The contribution will be used to provide neighbourhood police facilities to be located within 1.5km distance of the edge of the site boundary and such distance will include land within this distance measured radiating outward from any point of the site boundary. The S106 will provide for flexibility for this requirement to be in the form of an expanded facility in Barwell or additional neighbourhood Policing facility in the new neighbourhood centre.

38. SUSTAINABILITY

38.1 Policy 24 of the Core Strategy provides a series of sustainability targets for developments within the Borough and requires all developments in Hinckley, Burbage, Barwell and Earl Shilton be a minimum of Code Level 4 from 2013 – 2016 and Code Level 6 from 2016 onwards, unless it would make the development unviable.

38.2 Within the Sustainability Assessment, the developers have advised that in the current market achieving high BREEAM standards could impact on viability. This can potentially prevent the inward investment to the area that the Barwell SUE will deliver, along with the employment, associated economic and social benefits that the investment will bring. The developer consortium are promoting taking a more flexible approach and using Peter Brett’s Associates (PBA) ‘Equilibrium’ framework to provide the evidence base for sustainability. This allows a detailed analysis of each element of sustainability proposed by the development to be made against three criteria: • The delivery of benefits to local people (and thus the social sustainability of the scheme.

• An ‘importance’ score (this goes above and beyond what is simply required by local policy and adds additional local sustainability benefits).

• The affordability to local occupants (and thus the economic sustainability of the scheme).

38.3 “This approach follows the three core strands underpinning the presumption in favour of sustainable development promoted within the NPPF. These are economic, social and environmental. Providing a development is consistent with these criteria, the development should be considered sustainable and acceptable in principle. “

38.4 No viability assessment has been submitted to justify the sentence within the Sustainability Assessment (paragraph 5.2.2) ‘achieving the high CfS/BREEAM identified in local policy will render this development non-viable and thus pursuing this single policy objective has the potential to lose many other economic and social sustainability benefits.’ As such, officers are seeking the development meet Code Level 4 from 2013-2016 and then Code Level 6 from 2016 upwards. A condition is

100

proposed to secure this requirement. If at reserved matters stage the applicants consider that they are unable to meet the requirements of Policy 24 then they would have to submit a viability assessment to provide justification.

39. WASTE MANAGEMENT

39.1 The Environmental Statement includes an assessment of the waste management associated with the development and provides estimated quantities of waste generated through demolition, construction and operational waste management.

39.2 Waste generated on site through the construction process and the occupation of the completed development will be managed in an appropriate and sustainable way to ensure that the environmental, social and economic risks from waste are minimised, and where possible, turned into opportunities. Analysis of the likely waste arisings from the construction process suggests that without an appropriate management plan in place and high targets set, costs to the project from construction waste will be high.

39.3 A condition is recommended to secure the submission of a Site Waste Management Plan to be submitted and approved prior to the any work taking place on site.

40. LAND CONTAMINATION

40.1 The Environmental Statement includes an assessment of the proposed development on ground conditions and the likely constraints for the proposed development relating to land contamination and geotechnical issues.

40.2 Given the predominately agricultural use of the site the assessment concludes that a high proportion of the site has very little contamination. There is however a landfill site immediately to the east of the application site. This historic landfill site is assessed to give rise to a local moderate geoenvironmental risk in a zone around the perimeter of this area. This moderate risk relates primarily to potential hazardous ground-gas occurrence.

40.3 Based on the current (and known historical) land use history, the site is assessed as having a very low to low general risk. The absence of a potential site wide source (of contamination) eliminated the potential pollutant linkages and therefore there are no potential risks. A small number of localised Potential Sources of Contamination (PSCs) have been identified which have give rise to a local Moderate or Moderate/Low assessed risk. These PSCs are all localised and of limited extent in relation to the site as a whole and relate to the following land uses: • Backfilled field ponds;

• A land parcel with past land use history of use as public allotments; and

• An existing farmhouse and farmyard complex.

40.4 The ES concludes that the development proposals are appropriate for the location and it outlines suggested further intrusive geo-environmental investigations to be carried out prior to the commencement of work on each phase of the development.

40.5 In summary, subject to the imposition of planning conditions it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with Saved Policy NE17 of the Local Plan and the overarching intentions of the NPPF.

101

41. GEODIVERSITY AND MINERALS

41.1 Chapter 12 of the Environmental Statement includes an assessment of the potential for mineral reserves within the application site. The British Geological Survey (BGS) geological map record for the district shows local outliers of Glacial Sands and Gravel both within the main body of the site and extending north-western, north-eastern and south-western corners of the site. The extent, depth and quality of these potential mineral reserves are not known as no records from any exploratory mineral boreholes have been identified in the British Geological Survey Archives. The ES concludes that due to the isolated nature, small quantities and relative abundance of the minerals available, it is considered that the extraction of minerals from this site would not be viable. The proposed development would however sterilise the potential for future extraction of these minerals and consequently there would at worst be a theoretically minor adverse long term impact.

41.2 Further evaluation of the potential impacts upon minerals through additional desk study and intrusive site investigation (involving the sinking of 44 bore holes) has identified that whilst glacial sand and gravel deposits are present in ten outcrops mapped by the BGS, no substantive extension of the mapped outcrops or presence of further concealed mineral has been proven.

41.3 The report highlights that only the glacial sand and gravel outcrop mapped extending onto the northern part of the application site, to the east of White House Farm (outcrop 1) has been identified to contain potentially workable mineral reserves. However, only approximately 15% of the mapped outcrop extends onto the application site. The commercial viability of prior extraction solely within the application site is impacted by the presence of an apparent high groundwater table which would require the substantive part of the workable mineral to be removed by wet extraction techniques. The commercial viability will also be impacted by the variable grading of the mineral (e.g. the ratio of sand to gravel), the often high fines content (clay, silt and fine sand) which would necessitate processing of the raw mineral (i.e. establishment of processing plant to screen, wash, grade and sort the mineral into the required sizes of sand and gravel) and associated disposal of the ‘waste’ fines. Whilst it is not considered that it is commercially viable to extract the minerals within the application site, development will result in local sterilisation. The ES addendum concludes that there will be a minor adverse residual impact to the sand and gravel mineral reserves in the northern part of the application site from sterilisation by development.

41.4 The Mineral Planning Authority is satisfied that the Mineral Resource Investigation and the results and conclusions in the Mineral Assessment report has provided the additional information required to assess the degree of mineral sterilisation which could result from the SUE development. Whilst the ES offers no specific mitigation on how the mineral resource may be utilised, it does state that if sand and gravel needs to be excavated to facilitate the development an assessment will be made of the suitability of using the mineral as engineering fill at the time of the construction.

41.5 Whilst the County Council's Minerals and Waste team has indicated that part of the site is underlain by mineral reserves it accepts that it would not be viable for the developers of the SUE to win or work those reserves. The applicant has confirmed that it does not intend to try and win or work minerals under the site. Once the SUE has been developed any reserves that lie beneath it are likely to be rendered permanently inaccessible. In the circumstances it would be unreasonable to impose a condition which requires the developer to carry out any works directed at working or winning those reserves. Instead it is proposed that a grant of planning permission

102

should include an informative which draws attention to the fact that it does not authorise the winning or working or transfer of minerals.

41.6 On balance the positive contribution which the proposals make towards housing supply requirements, the need for the development generally and the delivery of regeneration in Barwell outweigh any perceived conflict with minerals policies.

42. UTILITIES AND SERVICES

42.1 The Environmental Statement includes an assessment of existing utilities and services specifically relating to electric, gas, water, sewerage and telecommunications within and surrounding the site and identifies potential diversions and up-grading works required to accommodate the development. The report also includes details of existing operators, plant and equipment and how the existing providers are able to deal with increased demand resulting from the development.

42.2 The report identifies that the early phasing of development can be supplied from the extension of the currently available network capacity within the local substations at Barwell and Middlefield. The remainder of the development will be supplied via off site reinforcement and the establishment of new distribution substations.

42.3 The utility companies have confirmed that there are no problems with supplying the site.

43. PHASING

43.1 The developer consortium seeks to deliver the proposals over a 12 year period. The time scale would depend on speed of construction and sale of properties which is very much dependent on the general economic situation. The phasing of development will influence when infrastructure such as schools are required and highway improvements need to be carried out.

43.2 The applicants have proposed a very broad phasing strategy based on 3 phases:

43.3 Phase 1 (2014 – 2018) of development will seek to provide between c.625 and 800 residential units. In addition to the implementation of new junctions, the upgrading of the Tweed River corridor will be undertaken that will include the provision of the NEAP (Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play) and respective attenuation features.

43.4 Phase 2 (2019 – 2023) will continue from phase 1 and realise a further 830 to 1120 homes, as well as the completion of the Core area (c.30-60 dwellings). It is envisaged that the Community Hub and school facilities will be developed within this phase.

43.5 Phase 3 (2024 – 2026) concludes the residential development of c.675 to 920 residential dwellings and concludes the provision of all play and sports facilities for the development.

43.6 Employment Area (2014 – 2026) provides the employment components of the site. Land for employment uses to be provided as required by the market.

43.7 Each phase will provide areas of landscaping, public open space and attenuation as necessary. Conditions are proposed to ensure the delivery of these issues.

103

43.8 Officers consider that the submitted phasing strategy is too vague and does not provide an adequate basis for the effective and properly coordinated delivery of the SUE. Therefore a condition is recommended requiring the submission of a detailed phasing plan that demonstrates how the development of new homes, employment uses, highways and other kinds of infrastructure will be coordinated to achieve a satisfactory and sustainable development for existing and future residents of Barwell.

43.9 The standard conditions for the submission of reserved matters and duration of any permission would not be appropriate in view of the projected construction period and therefore a condition granting a 12-year implementation period is proposed.

44. BARWELL REGENERATION

44.1 Infrastructure and Developer Contributions Contributions towards the provision of infrastructure and facilities must be considered in the context of Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan (2001) Policy IMP1, Spatial Objective 6 of the Core Strategy (2009) – Infrastructure provision. This looks to ensure that new development makes appropriate contributions towards the delivery of infrastructure and facilities that are needed to serve the development commensurate to the scale and nature of the development proposed.

44.2 The general approach to development contributions must be considered alongside the guidance contained within Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2012 (CIL Regs). The CIL Regulations require that developer contributions be necessary, directly and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development proposed.

44.3 Draft Policy 28 of the emerging AAP states that ‘planning permission will only be granted where the developer can demonstrate that the necessary infrastructure, services, facilities and amenities to support the development are in place, or will be provided when needed. The provision of infrastructure should derive from the development, whether physically provided on site, an acceptable off-site location or through financial contributions. It is expected that contributions would reflect the need for new infrastructure to mitigate the impact of the new development. As there may be a cumulative impact locally, or an impact on services derived from a different location but that relate to the development, contributions for off-site provision may be pooled.’

44.4 Other than being unable to achieve Code Level 4 from 2013-2016 and then Code Level 6 from 2016 upwards, the developers have confirmed that the proposal is economically viable and as such no viability assessment has been submitted with the application.

44.5 In compliance with the tests in Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2012 there are planning obligations which the development will be required to deliver. These are:

• Play and Open Space (maintenance)

• Play and Open Space (onsite provision)

• Informal Open Space – minimum of 4.20ha

• Play Areas – 4 Locally Equipped Areas of Play (LEAP), 1 Neighbourhood Area of Play (NEAP).

104

• Outdoor Sports Pitches – 7ha

• Pavilion to be provided alongside the outdoor sports pitches. Estimated cost of providing the building £500,000

• Structural Green Space – 14.46ha to be provided and distributed in 4 main areas within the application site.

44.6 Education

44.7 Primary provision - Proposed housing would provide a pupil yield of 600 primary places which necessitate both on site provision (a site of 1.93ha in order to construct a 2fe new primary school) and off-site provision (contribution). It is anticipated that a contribution in the order of £1,318,792 (dependent on housing numbers) will fall due. The contributions will be used to provide additional pupil spaces by providing new additional classrooms and a withdraw space at the schools serving the development (Newlands Primary School, Barwell, Barwell Infant School and Barwell Junior School).

44.8 Secondary provision - As there is not sufficient capacity to meet all of the places generated by both Barwell and Earl Shilton SUE at the nearest high and upper schools (The Heathfield Academy and William Bradford). The Section 106 Agreement will set out a formula which will secure the contribution for secondary school places.

44.9 Sport and Leisure (indoor)

44.10 A per head of population cost of £90.76 which will be used towards the building of new indoor sports and recreational facilities or expansion to existing indoor sports and leisure facilities in Barwell, Earl Shilton, Hinckley & Burbage. The contribution will be based on the indicative mix of dwellings proposed within the application, the range of which is between £461,185 - £635,850.

44.11 Civic Amenities

44.12 A per dwelling cost of £47.05 resulting in an anticipated the overall contribution will equate to circa £117,625. Monies will be used for the provision of additional capacity at the Barwell Civic Amenity Site to cater for extra waste being generated as a result of the development

44.13 Libraries

44.14 A per head of population cost for library stock resulting in an anticipated contribution of circa £71,775 and for personal computers and stations of circa £11,500 giving an anticipated overall total towards libraries of circa £83,275. The library stock contribution will be used to provide additional printed books, large print books and talking books at Barwell library in order to mitigate the impact of the development or with agreement such other alternative library that may serve the development. The library PC contribution will be used to provide additional personal computers at the Barwell library and to reconfigure the existing internal space with Barwell library in order to accommodate such additional personal computers or with agreement such other alternative library that may serve the development.

105

44.15 Health Care

44.16 Provision within the S106 to place reasonable endeavours on the owner to pursue the construction of a new GP surgery on the Constitutional Club in the first instance. If no contract is concluded with the Constitutional Club the developers shall be under an obligation to set aside and construct a GP surgery within the development site.

44.17 Community Facilities (off site)

44.18 The off site contribution amounts to £185,500 and will be used towards the cost of refurbishment of two existing community buildings within Barwell village centre (Jubilee Hall and Methodist Church).

44.19 The off site contribution will be paid prior to first occupation of any dwelling.

44.20 Community Facilities (on site)

44.21 The remaining part of the mitigation will be provided on site. The owner will provide suitable facilities as part of the Neighbourhood Centre. A minimum size of 575sqm will be provided for community uses. Prior to the submission of the detailed specification for approval, the owners shall consult with the Parish Council, community groups (including Barwell Village Improvement Group) and hold community consultation events to ascertain that the key element of community building would be based on the needs of the community. A detailed specification will be submitted to and approved for the community building prior to first occupation of any dwelling. The community building/space will be constructed and transferred to the Parish Council or HBBC prior to occupation of 800 dwellings.

44.22 Employment and Skills

44.23 Provisions to include: • Obligation to work with the skills and jobs body from the start of the tendering process for the design and construction of the development until the development is completed in order to secure employment and training opportunities arising from the construction phases of the development;

• Obligation to locally advertise all positions of employment through the construction and operational phases of the development through the Skills Body and Job Centre Plus;

• Obligation to ensure local businesses and suppliers are provided with information about the development and given the opportunity to tender for appropriate contracts or sub-contracts that arise as a consequence of the development; and

• Securing apprenticeship and work experience opportunities and training to be in accordance with benchmarks.

44.24 A contribution of £300,000 will be paid to HBBC in the following tranches: • £100,000 payable on commencement of development

• £100,000 prior to occupation of the 500 th dwelling

• £100,000 prior to occupation of the 1000 th dwelling

106

44.25 Employment Site

44.26 Provisions to include; i. The marketing of this part of the development from commencement of the development until the occupation of the last dwelling to be constructed on the development. The S106 will set out requirements for a marketing plan to be submitted and agreed prior to commencement of development;

ii. Ensuring the land is serviced in readiness for construction of employment uses prior to first occupation of any dwelling to be constructed as part of the development;

iii. Setting aside the employment land for employment use until the last dwelling to be constructed has been occupied;

iv. Reasonable endeavours to agree sale of freehold or leasehold terms on the employment site; and

v. Signage to be erected on commencement of development on A447 entrance in accordance with a scheme to be agreed.

44.27 Affordable Housing

44.28 10% on-site affordable housing provision based on tenure split of 75% social rent and 25% intermediate and 10% equivalent to be provided by way of off-site contribution. This equates to an estimated contribution of £12m.

44.29 Police

44.30 The contribution for neighbourhood policing facilities of 438sqm at a cost of £97,000 to be sought will be as per paragraph 26.9 and 26.10.

44.31 Neighbourhood Centre

44.32 A clause is proposed to ensure that marketing of the local centre will take place from occupation of the 800 th dwelling until the occupation of the last dwelling to be constructed on the development. The S106 will set out requirements for a marketing plan to be submitted and agreed prior to commencement of development and will also set out certain actions that will need to be incorporated within the marketing plan: • Setting aside the Neighbourhood Centre land for Neighbourhood Centre uses until the last dwelling to be constructed has been occupied;

• Reasonable endeavours obligations to agree sale of freehold or leasehold terms of the units within the neighbourhood centre or any part of it on reasonable commercial terms at reasonable rates

• The owner shall provide 6 monthly updates to HBBC on the detailing of the marketing

• The owner shall be placed under an obligation to lay out and complete such part of the neighbourhood centre to provide the community facility prior to occupation of the 800 th dwelling.

107

44.33 Highways

44.34 Public Rights of Way schemes: • Provision of a number of enhancements to the existing walking and cycling network [as listed below] to ensure that the development is fully served by high quality non-motorised routes to locations outside of the site

• Diversion of route U35 to tie in with Stapleton Lane.

• Surfacing improvements to U33 alongside cemetery to Adrian Drive.

• Resurfacing, lighting and re-grading slope of PRoW T58 between SUE and Barwell centre.

• Route T58 through site to be provided alongside north-south inner spine road to connect to school.

• Minor works and signage along Barwell Lane and surface improvements between Hinckley and PRoW U8.

• Surface improvement of PRoW U9 between Barwell Lane and Leicester Road.

• Other improvements, including improved signage, gates and marker posts where necessary.

• Associated costs of preparing and implementing orders for diversions / stopping- up and re-classification as appropriate.

44.35 Subject to the agreement with the applicants that the above obligations will be provided, officers consider that the application provides a comprehensive development which meets the requirements of the adopted Local Plan and emerging AAP in respect of infrastructure.

44.36 Public Realm

44.37 A scheme for public realm improvements within the adopted highway in the centre of Barwell has been submitted. This will include the introduction of high quality hard and soft landscaping of the centre, traffic lights within the centre to manage traffic flows, the design to give priority to pedestrians movement, defining the centre as a key space rather than just a junction, sculptural public artwork, levels rationalised to improve interface with properties and raised junctions to slow down traffic speeds. The village centre improvements will be delivered via a contribution of £1,000,000 pursuant to a planning obligation within the S106.

44.38 A detailed scheme for the works will be submitted and approval secured prior to any works commencing. Officers will consult with LCC Highways when considering whether to approve the submitted scheme. The works will then be completed prior to the occupation of any dwelling.

44.39 A further aspect of the improvements to the centre of Barwell involves the redevelopment of the Constitutional Club. Car parking spaces at the Constitutional Club will be available free of charge to the general public whether a GP surgery is constructed on the site or not. These spaces will be provided for use prior to the occupation of any dwelling.

108

45. PREMATURITY

45.1 An Area Action Plan is being prepared for Barwell and Earl Shilton. It has not been submitted to the Secretary of State. Whilst the Council has advanced the AAP through options stages which have been subject to extensive consultation, in terms of its compliance with the NPPF, it is at a relatively early stage of preparation and may not be accorded any great weight. The Council is charged with determining the application that is now before it. It may grant planning permission now notwithstanding the AAP remains to be concluded if it decides that it would be proper to do so having regard to the development plan and other material considerations.

45.2 Against that background, officers are satisfied that the proposals that this application makes for the provision of a SUE at Barwell will not prejudice the proper planning and delivery of the Earl Shilton component of the AAP. On that basis it is not considered premature to grant planning permission for the scheme.

46. CONCLUSION

46.1 The application accords with the development plan for Hinckley and Bosworth. It will deliver a balanced and sustainable development of 2500 new homes, substantial new employment opportunities and community infrastructure in an attractive well designed, landscaped and pleasant environment. The proposals will contribute to the regeneration of Barwell and will enhance the centre. The proposed arrangements for accessing the development will enable it to be safely and conveniently accessed by car and public transport without significant adverse impacts on the existing highway network. The scheme will also promote sustainable transport within and beyond this site. The application will protect and enhance the site’s biodiversity and historic heritage. The scheme will not cause flooding. Nor will it have any other significant adverse environmental impact that would warrant the refusal of planning permission. The scheme will, of course, extend into open countryside, take up agricultural land and change the appearance of the existing countryside. On balance, however, that change is justified by the positive contribution that the scheme will make to the regeneration of Barwell and the Borough more generally.

46.2 Members are therefore invited to grant planning permission for the development, subject to the imposition of the conditions listed in the attached schedule and the completion of a section 106 agreement.

47. RECOMMENDATION

47.1 The Development Control Manager be granted delegated powers to finalise matters associated with the completion of the S106 agreement and the range, scope and drafting of all conditions attached to this permission and issue outline consent subject to: a) the execution of an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 towards the provision of the following:

• Public transport enhancements

• Highways mitigation

• Measures to secure a Travel Plan

• Measures to secure the long term management and provision of public open space and play facilities

109

• Delivery of a new primary school located within the community hub together with a contribution towards provision of off-site primary school requirements and financial contribution towards funding future secondary education requirements

• Affordable housing

• Sport and leisure facilities (indoor)

• Public Realm improvements

• Financial contribution towards civic amenities (waste)

• Financial contribution towards libraries

• Health care provision

• Community facilities both on site and off site

• A Neighbourhood Centre

• Financial contribution towards a neighbourhood policing facility

• Provisions to ensure work with Skills Body and Job Centre to secure apprenticeships and work experience opportunities.

• Delivery of the Employment Area, and

b) conditions relating to the following matters:

• Time limits and approval of Reserved Matters

• Phasing

• Masterplanning and design

• Highways and Movement

• Environmental Sustainability

• Heritage and Archaeology

• Environmental Management and Protection

• Sustainable drainage and Infrastructure

• Neighbourhood Centre

• Employment

• Play and Open Space provision

(Detailed conditions are attached at the end of this report)

110

48. SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION AND RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES;

48.1 The application accords with the development plan for Hinckley and Bosworth. It has been formulated carefully in consultation with the Council’s officers, the local highway authority and statutory consultees to deliver a balanced and sustainable extension to Barwell. More particularly, the scheme will provide 2500 new homes accompanied by substantial new employment opportunities, schools, shops, other community facilities, play areas and open space. That will promote the regeneration of Barwell, which has a particular need for more jobs and better health facilities. It will also make a substantial contribution to the Council’s wider spatial strategy, which requires the delivery of 9000 new homes between 2006 and 2026. Provided the development is carefully controlled through the imposition of conditions, and certain contributions secured through a section 106 agreement, the development can be carried out without any unacceptable impact on the highway network, drainage, ecology, archaeology and listed buildings. Officers are also satisfied that the grant of planning permission will not prejudice the proper planning of a sustainable urban extension to Earl Shilton through the emergent Barwell and Earl Shilton Area Action Plan.

48.2 Summary of the policies and proposals in the development plan which are relevant to the recommendation to grant planning permission

Local Plan 2006 – 2026: Core Strategy (2009):- Policies 3, 5, 15, 16, 19, 20 and 24

Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan (2001):- Policies IMP1, BE1, BE5, BE14, BE26, NE2, NE5, NE10, NE12, NE13, NE14, NE15, T3, T5, T9, T10, T11, REC2, REC3, REC4

49. CONDITIONS

Time limits and approval of reserved matters

1 The development to which this permission relates shall begin within 12 years of the date of this permission or within 2 years of the final approval of the reserved matters, whichever is the later.

Reason - In order to permit sufficient time to implement this large, complex and multi phased development and comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 Application for approval of the approval of all reserved matters must be made within 12 years of the date of this permission.

Reason – In order to permit sufficient time to implement this large, complex and multi-phased development and comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3 No phase of development or any part thereof (as defined in condition 5 herein) shall commence (other than works of demolition or ground works) until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing details of each of the following reserved matters in respect of that phase:-

i) The layout of the site including the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces are provided and the relationship of these to buildings and spaces outside the development

111

ii) The scale of each building proposed in relation to its surroundings iii) The appearance of the development including the aspects of a building or place that determine the visual impression it makes. iv) The landscaping of the site including treatment of private and public space to enhance or protect the sites amenity through hard and soft measures.

The development of each phase and each part thereof shall be carried out in accordance with each approval of reserved matters unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason - To comply with Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.

Phasing and High Quality Design

4 No development shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a Site Wide Phasing Programme which: a) Indicates the sequence in which the whole of the development authorised by this planning permission is intended to be carried out. The Phasing Programme shall provide details of the precise location and extent of individual development phases, reference to the type (including details of highways, schools, sporting provision and other infrastructure and structural landscaping) and extent of any development in each phase, a description and the intended timing of the commencement and completion of each phase; and

b) The Phasing Programme shall specify (amongst other things) the scope and timing of each of the following components of the development:-

(1) Major internal infrastructure including internal roads, pedestrian and cycle crossings, footpaths, cycleways, services, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) and the delivery of open space (confirming ownerships & responsibilities) (2) Confirmation of the scope and timescale for the implementation of off-site highway infrastructure including highway improvements and where required the undertaking of Road Safety Audits, the progressing of Traffic Regulation Orders and other consultation processes. (3) The delivery of public transport services and accompanying infrastructure within the site and external to the development to include but not be limited to: bus stops (within a maximum 400m walking distance of each dwelling within the development); bus shelters, bus prioritising measures at signalised junctions, Real Time Information, raised kerbs, lighting and timetable information. (4) The submission of a timescale and mechanism for the stopping-up, diversion and re-classification of Public Rights of Way affected by the development, as necessary in agreement with the highway authority. c) The provision of all agreed elements in the Phasing Programme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Phasing Programme and the time triggers specified in it.

112

Reason: To provide clarification on how the development will be delivered to assist determination of reserved matters and to ensure that necessary infrastructure provision and environmental mitigation is provided in time to address the impact and needs of the development in accordance with Policy 3, 5, 15, 16, 19, 20 of the Core Strategy 2009, Policies IMP1, BE1, NE12, NE13, NE15, T3, T9, REC2, REC3 and REC4 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001.

5 No phase of development shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:-

a) plans showing the boundaries of that phase;

b) permanent and temporary access arrangements to that phase;

c) any interim surface, boundary or landscaping details relating to that phase.

The development of each phase shall be carried out in accordance with the plans, arrangements and details and other details approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason – To ensure that, in the event of the development being carried out on a phased basis, satisfactory access, car parking and interim environmental treatment is incorporated within each phase, in the interest of public safety and visual amenity in accordance with Policy BE1 and T5 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001.

6 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the following plans:- • Master plan RG37 Rev E

• Parameters Plan Building Heights RG21 Rev K

• Parameters Plan Density Plan Rev G

• Parameters Plan RG20 Rev H

• Parameters Plan RG19 Rev H

• Parameters Plan RG18 Rev L

• Ashby Road Northern Access Junction 25287-012-001F

• Ashby Road Southern Access Roundabout 25287-012-003C

• Stapleton Lane Signalised Junction 25287-012-005B

• Stapleton Lane Eastern Access Junction 25287-012-002C

Reason – For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 7 Any reserved matter submission for layout, scale and appearance shall be accompanied by a comprehensive Design Code Statement, which should complement any phases already approved. The Design Code Statement shall accord with the principles of development as set out in the indicative master

113

plan reference RG37 Rev E and the submitted Design and Access statement (dated April 2012) and shall include: a. A Development Framework Plan b. A layout incorporating street frontage development based on defensible perimeter blocks. c. Co-ordinated landscaping proposals between individual plots and enhanced green space. d. Structural Framework for planting which includes a significant proportion of native tree and shrub species. e. Character areas which are clearly defined f. A movement network including street types, route hierarchy, footpaths, cycleways and bus service links.

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Design Code Statement

Reason – To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance and a coordinated approach to the redevelopment proposals in the interests of the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy BE1 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan and Policy 16 of the Core Strategy.

Restriction on the quantum of certain land uses authorised by this outline planning permission

Number of dwellings

8 The development hereby permitted does not authorise and shall not comprise more than 2,500 dwellings falling within Class C3 of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended).

Reason – The proposal is subject of an Environmental Statement (ES) in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 upon which the Master Plan is based and the significance of any material alteration and impact that has not bee assessed must be considered. The development must be limited accordingly and not exceed the total 2,500 dwellings tested by the Environmental Statement and to ensure sustainable development in accordance with Policy 3 of the Core Strategy..

Employment

9 The development hereby permitted does not authorise and shall not comprise more than 24,800sqm of employment floorspace, which shall be limited to uses falling within Classes B2 and B8 of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be provided within the area marked as an “Employment Zone” on Master plan RG37 Rev E.

Reason - The proposal is subject of an Environmental Statement (ES) in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 upon which the Master Plan is based and the significance of any material alteration and impact that has not been assessed must be considered. The development must be limited accordingly and not exceed the 24,800 square metres of employment floorspace tested by the

114

Environmental Statement and to ensure sustainable development in accordance with Policy 3 of the Core Strategy.

Retail

10 The development hereby permitted does not authorise and shall not comprise more than 1000sqm falling within Class Classes A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended).

Reason – The proposal is subject of an Environmental Statement (ES) in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 upon which the Master Plan is based and the significance of any material alteration and impact that has not been assessed must be considered. The development must be limited accordingly and not exceed the 1000sqm of retail and commercial space tested by the Environmental Statement and to ensure sustainable development in accordance with Policy 3 of the Core Strategy.

Sustainability

11 Those dwellings completed up to 31 December 2015 shall meet the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) code level 4 as a minimum, those completed 1 January 2016 onwards shall meeting CSH code level 6 as a minimum (or the equivalent which replaces CSH and is to be the assessment in force when the residential units concerned as registered for assessment purposes).

Reason – In the interests of tackling climate change and creating a sustainable development which meets standards for energy efficiency, water efficiency and sustainable construction in accordance with Policy 24 of the Core Strategy.

12 All school and offices shall achieve a minimum of Building Research Establishment Environment Assessment Method (BREEAM) level “very good” (or the equivalent standard which replaces BREEAM and is to be the assessment in force at the time when the non-residential unit or units concerned are registered for assessment purposes). In the event that BREEAM standard achieved for the actual building falls short of the “very good” standard” (or the equivalent standard which replaces BREEAM and is to be the assessment in force at the time when the non-residential unit or units concerned are registered for assessment purposes) achieved at design stage, a programme of remediation works shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and carried out in accordance with a timetable to be agreed.

13 Prior to the commencement of development within any phase (as shown on the indicative masterplan) a copy of the Interim Design Stage Assessment Certificate shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that any residential or non-residential units to be constructed within that parcel or part thereof will achieve the required CSH and BREEAM levels (pursuant to condition 12 above).

115

Reason - In the interests of tackling climate change and creating a sustainable development which meets standards for energy efficiency, water efficiency and sustainable construction in accordance with Policy 24 of the Core Strategy .

14 Within six months of the completion of any unit(s) a copy of the Post Construction Final Certificate shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority to prove that the unit(s) have been constructed in accordance with the Sustainability Report and that the development has achieved the relevant BREEAM and CSH levels.

Highways

15 No development shall commence until a mechanism for the continual review of the transport impacts of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is appropriately mitigated against to ensure impacts are no worse at any time during the construction phase than at the completion of the development in accordance with Policies 5 of the Core Strategy and Policies T3 and T11 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

16 In accordance with the agreed Phasing Programme the Ashby Road Northern Access Junction shall be constructed as shown on drawing 25287-012-001F and available for use thereafter.

Reason: To ensure adequate and safe access for all modes of transport to the development in accordance with Policy 5 of the Core Strategy and Policy T5 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

17 In accordance with the agreed Phasing Programme the Ashby Road Southern Access Roundabout shall be constructed as shown on drawing 25287-012- 003C and available for use thereafter.

Reason: To ensure adequate and safe access for all modes of transport to the development in accordance with Policy 5 of the Core Strategy and Policy T5 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

18 In accordance with the agreed Phasing Programme the Stapleton Lane Signalised Junction shall be constructed as shown on drawing 25287-012- 005B and available for use thereafter.

Reason: To ensure adequate and safe access for all modes of transport to the development in accordance with Policy 5 of the Core Strategy and Policy T5 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan. 19 In accordance with the agreed Phasing Programme the Stapleton Lane Eastern Access Junction shall be constructed as shown on drawing 25287- 012-002C and available for use thereafter.

116

Reason: To ensure adequate and safe access for all modes of transport to the development in accordance with Policy 5 of the Core Strategy and Policy T5 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

20 Notwithstanding the details showing the footway and cycleway crossing points and widths and raised table on submitted drawings 25287-012-005B and 25287-012-002C, and all details on accompanying drawing 25287-012-004D, in accordance with the agreed Phasing Programme, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to provide and implement pedestrian and cycleways on both sides of the carriageway connecting Stapleton Lane / Ashby Road junction to the junction with Cumberland Way, including crossing points and traffic calming measures. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure adequate and safe access for all modes of transport to the development in accordance with Policy 5 of the Core Strategy and Policy T5, T9, and T10 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

21 Notwithstanding the details shown on submitted drawing 25287-012-006B, in accordance with the agreed Phasing Programme, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to provide and implement a signal-controlled junction at Ashby Road /Stapleton Lane with pedestrian and cycleway provision including crossing facilities and right turn lane from a southern direction. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details.

22 Notwithstanding the details showing footway and cycleway crossing points, routes and widths and right turn lane submitted drawings 25287-012-001F and 25287-012-003C, and all details on accompanying drawings 25287-012- 007A, 25287-012-008A and 25287-012-009A in accordance with the agreed Phasing Programme, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to provide and implement a continuous pedestrian and cycleway including crossing points, connecting Main Street, Stapleton to the Ashby Road / Stapleton Lane junction, and between the Ashby Road / Normandy Way junction and the Ashby Road access roundabout. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details.

23 Notwithstanding the details shown on submitted drawing 25287-012-013, in accordance with the agreed Phasing Programme, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to provide and implement a signal-controlled junction at Ashby Road /Hinckley Road / Rogues Lane with pedestrian and cycleway provision along the eastern side of Ashby Road including crossing facilities at the eastern Hinckley Road arm of the junction and right turn lanes from a northern and

117

southern direction. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details.

24 Notwithstanding the details shown on drawing 25287-003-SK08, in accordance with the agreed Phasing Programme, a scheme shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to provide and implement improvements to the junction of Malt Mill Bank / High Street / Chapel Street /Shilton Road to include pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities, amended bus stop locations, traffic calming measures and adjustments to existing street furniture. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure adequate and safe access for all modes of transport to the development in accordance with Policy 5 of the Core Strategy and Policy T3, T5, T9, and T10 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

25 Notwithstanding the details submitted within the Transport Assessment, in accordance with the agreed Phasing Programme, a public transport scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to include full details of the proposed destinations, routes, days and hours of operation, frequency and duration of provision of a daily bus service to serve the development. The bus service shall be provided thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure high quality frequent public transport choice for all new residents from early occupation in order to encourage modal shift in accordance with T3 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

26 All details of the proposed development shall comply with the design standards of the Leicestershire County Council as contained in its current design standards document. Such details must include parking and turning facilities, access widths, gradients, surfacing, signing and lining (including that for cycleways and shared use footway/cycleways) and visibility splays and be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority before development commences.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy T5 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

27 No vehicular access serving any part of the development shall provide the sole means of vehicular access to more than 150 dwellings.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory pattern of development in conjunction with a sensible layout strategy that allows for adequate access by service, emergency and delivery vehicles in accordance with T5 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

28 All existing vehicular accesses that become redundant as a result of this proposal shall be closed permanently and the existing vehicular crossings reinstated in accordance with a scheme that shall first have been submitted to

118

and approved by the Local Planning Authority within one month of the new access being brought into use.

Reason: To reduce the number of vehicular accesses to the site and consequently to reduce the number of potential conflict points in accordance with T5 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

29 In accordance with the agreed Phasing Programme, prior to the occupation of each phase a Residential Travel Plan, in accordance with the Framework Travel Plan, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures approved shall thereafter be provided.

Reason: To ensure that adequate steps are taken to provide a transport choice/a choice in mode of travel to and from the site in accordance with Policy 5 of the Core Strategy.

30 In accordance with the agreed Phasing Programme, prior to the occupation of each phase an Employment Travel Plan in accordance with the Framework Travel Plan, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures approved shall thereafter be provided.

Reason: To ensure that adequate steps are taken to provide a transport choice/a choice in mode of travel to and from the site in accordance with Policy 5 of the Core Strategy.

31 In accordance with the agreed Phasing Programme, prior to the occupation of each phase a school travel plan in accordance with the Framework Travel Plan, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures approved shall thereafter be provided.

Reason: To ensure that adequate steps are taken to provide a transport choice/a choice in mode of travel to and from the site in accordance with Policy 5 of the Core Strategy.

32 In accordance with the agreed Phasing Programme, no development shall take place within each phase of development, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall set out the overall strategies for: i. The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors ii. Loading and unloading of plant and materials iii. Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development iv. Location of Contractor compound(s) v. Screening and hoarding details vi. Wheel washing facilities vii. Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction viii. Hours of operation - the details shall include the hours of construction and the hours for the loading/unloading of materials. ix. Construction noise and vibration strategy x. Earthworks and soil management strategy xi. Sustainable site waste management plan xii. The means of access and routing for demolition and construction traffic xiii. A construction travel plan

119

xiv. Management of surface water run-off including details of any temporary localised flooding management system and a scheme to treat and remove suspended solids from surface water run-off during construction xv. The storage of fuel and chemicals xvi. The control of lighting

The approved CEMP shall be adhered to throughout the construction period or that phase of development to which it relates.

Reason: To ensure appropriate mitigation for the impacts caused by the construction phases of the development and to reflect the scale and nature of development assessed in the submitted Environmental Statement in accordance with Policy T5, NE2 and NE14 of Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

Landscaping

33 The landscaping required to be carried out for each phase of development (including boundary treatment and that associated with surface treatment and the landscaping of footpaths) approved under Condition 3 herein and shall be completed in all respects not later than the end of the first planting season following substantial completion of the buildings within that phase. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years from planting shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees or shrubs of a similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.

Reason – To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy 3 of the Core Strategy and Policy BE1 and NE12 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

Open Space

34 No development shall commence unless there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority an Open Space Strategy which shall include the specification, the timing of the completion of and arrangements for the management of:-

i) All areas of informal and formal open space identified on Figure 8.1 of Illustrative Landscape Plan contained with the Design and Access Statement ii) Playing fields/sports pitches iii) Other outdoor sports facilities iv) Children’s play areas including 4 LEAP’s and 1 NEAP v) 0.71ha of allotments vi) Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, watercourses and other water bodies vii) Green Infrastructure linkages including pedestrian and cycle links and public rights of way and bridleways viii) Details of the planted bund as illustrated in Figure 7.19 of the Design and Access Statement

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Open Space Strategy.

120

Reason – In the interest of residential amenity, visual amenity and provision of multi-function Green Infrastructure and connectivity in accordance with Policy 3, 19 and 20 of the Core Strategy 2009, REC2, REC3 and REC4 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan and the Supplementary Planning Document: Play and Open Space.

The Protection of Trees

35 Before any development commences on site within any phase the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in respect of that phase and any approved mitigation or protection measures shall be put into place prior to and remain in place during any construction work a) A detailed scaled plan showing the position of every tree on site with a stem diameter over the bark measured at 1.5 metres above ground level of at least 75 millimetres. In addition any tree on neighbouring or adjoining land that is likely to have an effect upon or be affected by the proposal (e.g. by shade, overhang from the boundary, intrusion of the Root Protection Area etc) must be shown; b) A current schedule of trees as specified in BS5837:2012 (Para 4. 4. 2. 5 ) and a tree constraints plan; c) An arboricultural implications assessment, arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan (to include protection measures during and after construction and any construction exclusion zones) in accordance with BS5837:2012 which shall include any proposals for pre- construction tree works (including access facilitation pruning) and tree management requirements in accordance with BS 3998:2010. d) A method statement in respect of any hard surfacing within root protection areas, construction of site compounds and service installation where underground apparatus is to pass within a Root Protection Area. e) An auditable system of arboricultural site monitoring by a retained project arboriculturalist to be approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason – In order to protect and preserve existing trees within the site which are of amenity value in accordance with Policies BE1 and NE12 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

Archaeology

36 No demolition or development shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a programme of archaeological investigation. The Programme shall include (without limitation):-

i. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording (including trial trenching, assessment of results and preparation of an appropriate mitigation scheme)

ii. The programme for post investigation assessment

iii. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording

iv. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation

121

v. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation

vi. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.

No demolition or development shall take place other than in accordance with the approved Written Scheme of Investigation.

Reason – To ensure satisfactory archaeological investigation and recording in accordance with the requirements of Policies BE13, BE14 and BE16 of Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

Flooding

37 In accordance with the agreed Phasing Programme the development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) dated March 2012, Ref: 25287; Appendix 13.1, Chapter 13, Volume 2 of the EIA, dated April 2012 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the EIA Sections 13.64 to 13.78 and FRA Section 4.5 (unless otherwise stated below): 1. Limiting and storing the surface water run-off generated by by all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 30% (for climate change) critical rain storm so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site, as shown on FRA Drawing No. 25287/008/010 Revision C (FRA Section 4.2, 6.2 and 6.4).

2. Provision of compensatory flood plain storage for the provision of the Vehicular road crossing of the River Tweed, and any other crossing located within the 100 year flood plain as shown on FRA Drawing No. 25287/008/009.

3. Provision of replacement trash/security screens to the existing Tweed Brook culvert which runs under the historic landfill site (FRA section 7).

4. Finished floor levels are set no lower than 600mm above the modelled 100 year plus 20% (for climate change) flood level applicable at the development phase (FRA section 7).

The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation of any dwelling/building within the relevant phase and shall thereafter be maintained.

Reason- To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site, to prevent flooding elsewhere by ensuring that compensatory storage of flood water is provided, to reduce the risk of flooding from blockages to the existing culvert and to reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants in accordance with Policies NE2 and NE14 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

38 The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with a scheme to ensure no raising of ground levels or bridge soffit levels, resulting in elevated flood levels, or a loss of flood plain storage due to the provision of the proposed new vehicular bridge crossing of the River Tweed, and/or any other public foot path crossings of the River Tweed or

122

Tweed Brook, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority.

The scheme shall include, but not be exclusive of: 1. Limiting the number of Crossings of the River Tweed, in the Tweed Park area to 2, plus the new road crossing, as illustrated in the Environmental Statement Addendum dated November 2012.

2. Crossings to be provided as clear span bridges or arches in preference to any culverting. Including the upgrading of existing crossings, where upgrading is required or proposed.

3. Bridge soffits set a minimum of 600mm above the modelled 100 year plus 20% (for climate change) flood level applicable at the crossing site. Flood plain outlines are shown on FRA Drawing No. 25287/008/009.

4. Bridge abutments set back beyond the top of the natural bank of the watercourse.

5. Where necessary culverts designed in accordance with CIRIA C689 (including up sizing to provide a free water surface and natural bed), and to have a minimum width/length of culvert essential for access purposes.

6. Provision of compensatory flood storage for all ground levels raised within the 100 year flood plain applicable at the bridge crossing sites, including proposed location, volume (calculated in 200mm slices from the flood level) and detailed design (plans, cross, and long sections) of the compensation proposals.

7. Compensatory flood storage provide before or as a minimum at the ground works phase of the vehicle bridge and any other crossing construction.

8. Detailed designs (plans, cross, long sections and calculations) in support of any crossing.

9. Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion.

Reason - To prevent flooding elsewhere by ensuring that compensatory storage of flood water is provided, to reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development, adjacent land and properties, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system; and the proposed foot bridges within the Tweed Park may be inaccessible during flood events, and as such could increase the risk of harm to life in accordance with Policies NE2 and NE14 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

39 The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with a scheme to replace the existing upstream and downstream trash/security screens to the Tweed Brook culvert under the historic landfill site which has been submitted to and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

The scheme shall include:

123

1. Provision of the replacement screens prior to first occupation of any dwelling.

2. Trash/Security screens designed in accordance with the Trash and Security screen manual, 2009, or any subsequent publication.

3. Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion.

The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained prior to the occupation of dwellings or buildings within the relevant phase of development.

Reason - To reduce the risk of flooding from blockages to the existing culvert; to facilitate the clearing of the upstream trash screen during flood events and to reduce the risk of harm to operatives during maintenance in accordance with Policies NE2 and NE14 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

40 The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with a surface water drainage scheme for each phase of development within the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Environment Agency and SUDS Approval Board. The scheme shall subsequently be fully implemented prior to the occupation of dwellings or buildings in the relevant phase of development in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

The scheme shall include, but not be exclusive of: 1. Surface water drainage system/s designed in accordance with either the National SUDs Standards, or CIRIA C697 and C687, whichever are in force when the detailed design of the surface water drainage system is undertaken.

2. Limiting the discharge rate of surface water run-off generated by by all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 30% (for climate change) critical rain storm so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site, as shown on FRA Drawing No. 25287/008/010 Revision C.

3. Provision of surface water run-off attenuation storage to accommodate the difference between the allowable discharge rate/s and all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 30% (for climate change) critical rain storm.

4. Detailed design (plans, cross, long sections and calculations) in support of any surface water drainage scheme, including details on any attenuation system, and the outfall arrangements.

5. Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion

124

Reason - To prevent the increased risk of flooding, and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system and to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity in accordance with Policies NE2 and NE14 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan .

41 No development within each phase of the development shall be commenced until such a time as a scheme to dispose of foul drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of dwellings or buildings within the relevant phase of development unless subsequently agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason - To minimise the risk of pollution of the environment in accordance with Policies NE2 and NE14 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

Environmental Protection

42 No Phase of development shall commence unless there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a Construction Environmental Management Plan for that Phase which shall specify the provision to be made for the following matters: a. Overall strategy for managing environmental impact which arise during construction; b. Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; c. Control of noise emanating from the site during the construction period; d. Hours of construction work for the development; e. Location, scale and appearance of contractor’s compounds, materials storage and other storage arrangements for cranes and plant, equipment and related temporary infrastructure; f. Designation, layout and design of construction access and egress points; g. Internal site circulation routes; h. Directional signage (on and off site); i. Provision for emergency vehicles; j. Provision for al site operatives, visitors and construction vehicles loading and unloading plant and materials; k. Provision for all site operatives, visitors and construction vehicles for parking and turning within the site during the construction period; l. Details of measures to prevent mud and other materials migrating onto the highway from construction vehicles; m. Routing agreement for construction traffic; n. Enclosure of phase or development parcel and the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; and o. Waste audit and scheme for waste minimisation and recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works.

The approved Construction Environmental Management Plan and the measures that it requires to be taken shall be carried out and/or (as the case may be) retained for the duration of the development.

Reason – In the interests of residential amenity, highways safety, visual amenity and waste minimisation in accordance with Policies BE1 and NE2 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

125

43 No development of any phase shall be commenced until a waste management plan for that Phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development and the management of waste arising from it shall then be carried in accordance with the waste management plan.

Reason - To ensure that adequate provision is made for the management of construction and operation of waste arising from the development in accordance with Policy BE1 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

Land Contamination

44 No development shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in a scheme to manage risk arising from any of the site: The scheme shall include the following:- 1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: all previous uses, potential contaminants associated with those uses, a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors.

2) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

3) The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

4) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme prior to the occupation of any part of the development.

Reason - To ensure protection of controlled waters receptors and to ensure protection of controlled waters receptors in accordance with Policies NE2 and NE14 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

45 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the Local Planning Authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Reason - To ensure protection of controlled waters receptors, to ensure safe development of the site and to protect the amenities of future occupiers of the site in accordance with Policies NE2 and NE14 of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

126

46 No phase of development which borders the former landfill site shall be commenced until a scheme for the monitoring of landfill gas has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and any remediation works so approved shall be carried out prior to the relevant phase of the site first being occupied.

Reason - To ensure safe development of the site and to protect the amenities of future occupiers of the site to accord with Policies NE2 and NE14 of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

Noise

47 No development within any phase shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a scheme for securing a satisfactory noise environment in the proposed school and dwellings. All works comprised within the approved scheme for each phase shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme prior to the first occupation of any dwelling, or the first occupation of a school within that phase.

Reason – In order to protect the amenities of existing and of the proposed residential accommodation in accordance with Policies BE1 and NE2 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

48 No phase of development shall commence unless there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing a scheme for protecting existing dwellings from noise caused by that phase of development. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details of each applicable phase of development herby approved and maintained as approved thereafter.

Reason - In order to protect the amenities of existing and of the proposed residential accommodation in accordance with Policies BE1 and NE2 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

Air Quality

49 Development shall not take place other than in accordance with the recommendations of the applicant’s Air Quality Assessment dated March 2012 (project ref 25287/010) contained with Volume 3b of the Environmental Statement.

Reason – To ensure the necessary air quality mitigation measures and management regimes to mitigate the impact of the development upon air quality are implemented in accordance with the Environmental Statement in accordance with Policies BE1 and NE2 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

Lighting

50 No development shall commence within any phase until a scheme for the external lighting of that phase (including details of permanent external lighting including layout plan, lighting types, luminaire type, intensity, mounting height, aiming angles and luminaire profiles), has been submitted to and approved in

127

writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and thereafter maintained as approved for each phase of the development.

Reason - To safeguard the amenities of nearby occupiers and to ensure that there is no unnecessary light pollution, in accordance with the requirements of Policies BE1 and BE26 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

Ecology

51 No development shall commence until a Habitat Creation Plan and Ecological Management Plan have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The Habitat Creation Plan shall detail the creation of new wildlife habitats on flood attenuation areas north of Kirby Park and elsewhere within the application site, ponds, grasslands in Tweed Spinney and grasslands and wetlands along the River Tweed Corridor. The extent of habitat creation will be in accordance with the proposals and quantities set out in the Environmental Statement and Ecological Appraisal (prepared by EDP dated February 2012 ref EDP1438_02b) and shown in the Site Wide Landscape Framework (figure 8.2 within the Design and Access Statement).

The Ecological Management Plan will describe arrangements for the management of Little Fields Farm Meadow Local Wildlife Site and other wildlife habitats hedges, ponds, wetlands, new woodlands, trees, wildflower grassland, scrub, badgers, River Tweed corridor and Local Wildlife Site.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Habitat Creation Plan and the approved Habitat Management Plan.

Reason – To ensure a net gain in biodiversity and enhancement to the Green Infrastructure network in accordance with Policy 3 and 20 of the Core Strategy.

52 No development shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority an Ecological Construction Method Statement (ECMS) The ECMS shall detail: 1. Measures to protect retained hedgerows, trees and green corridors from incursion;

2. Measures to protect roosting bats;

3. Measures to protect reptiles;

4. Measures to protect birds, their nests, eggs and young; and

5. Measures to protect badgers.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved ECMS.

Reason – To ensure necessary ecological mitigation measures and management regimes are implemented in accordance with the Environmental Statement and the overarching principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

128

APPENDIX 2 – LATE ITEMS 23 APRIL 2013

Consultations:-

Consultee Representations Highways Agency (12th April 2013) – No objection

Neighbour representations 10 representations received (14 th , 16 th , 17 th , 20 th and 21st April 2013) objecting on the following grounds; • Speed humps on Stapleton Lane are not necessary. There is no evidence of speeding along this lane.

• The majority of people oppose the application. It is not an urban area and this development would destroy countryside, increase traffic and change the nature of the village.

• Our elected representatives must reflect our wishes and vote against it. It will destroy our village.

• Both the original Transport Assessment and the Addendum ignores the traffic impact of the SUE on Stoke Golding and the neighbouring villages.

• Questions Leicestershire County Council Highway Authority observations. Consider the observations to be incomplete and too late. The basic point of Highways latest response seems to be that if improvements are made to the strategic road network then traffic will not reroute to the rural road network. Unfortunately there is little or no evidence to substantiate this stance and lots of evidence to the contrary.

• There is still no publicly available evidence that the proposed mitigations will be effective and manage the impact on the rural network to an acceptable level.

• The output from the latest traffic modelling needs to be made public and the public needs a proper opportunity to question, scrutinise and comment.

• The decision must be deferred until the latest information can be properly assessed and an acceptable solution be designed.

• A47 Normandy Way/A447 Ashby Road and A447 Ashby Road/ Hinckley Road/Rogue’s Lane signalised crossroads – it is clear that whilst financial contributions may have been agreed there is no final effective design available for traffic at either of these junctions. These are the key junctions on the network to ensure traffic flows on the main trunk network and not on the rural roads. Having done computer modelling to identify the potential rural traffic problem why was the model not run with the proposed highway changes incorporated, to clearly demonstrate that the problems had been solved. There is not one single reference in the LCC Highways comments that identified problems have been resolved. On this basis, if approved there is potential for serious traffic problems in a few years time. Therefore suggest the following condition or something similar is attached to the approval; ‘The LCC highway recommendations and proposals are rejected. Highways changes resulting from the Barwell SUE and Earl Shilton SUE should be re-submitted for consideration and approval by the planning committee before development of the SUEs commence. These proposals should clearly demonstrate that the potential impact of the two developments on rural roads has been effectively mitigated’.

129

• Increase in traffic in Stoke Golding, should be made a 20mph zone and monies available to facilitate effective traffic calming within the village.

• Increase in traffic through Dadlington. People will use it as a rat run to reach their destination.

• Concerned and disappointed to note that the designs of the two junctions on the trunk road that are supposed to encourage drivers to avoid local rat runs (A447/Rogues Lane and A447/A47) have yet to be agreed and even if they are, there is currently no phasing schedule.

• The rat runs identified in the LCC Highways representations already carry a lot of non- resident traffic.

• Given the documented traffic issues that Stoke Golding and Dadlington already deal with and the lack of action by HBBC to resolve these issues through the implementation of traffic calming measures, it is regrettable that the Highways Authority is supporting the Barwell development.

• No objection to the principle of development once the problems relating to its integrations with the existing road infrastructure are resolved.

1 representation received from David Tredinnick MP (12 th April 2013) objecting to the application on behalf of his constituents on the following grounds; • The Borough Council’s SUE policy is fundamentally flawed as a very large number of local residents have pointed out over a number of years. The whole point of developing a SUE is to join the new neighbourhood to an existing urban area which already has the infrastructure and facilities to cope with the scheme - urban is the key word as Barwell is a semi-rural village that does fit the criteria for the SUE

• Application is premature in that the Area Action Plan has not been adopted.

• The plans fail to adequately tackle the key infrastructure issues in Barwell and the surrounding villages. Modelling for vehicle movements on the local road network does not deal with the reality of a transport system already operating beyond its optimum capacity. Crucially the Local Highway Authority is unable to support the plans for Barwell SUE.

• It is clear that the development of the SUE would undoubtedly add to the significant flooding/water management issues now being experienced on a regular basis in the area.

• Failure of the plans to demonstrate precisely how the development will bring about the much needed sustained regeneration of the existing commercial centre in Barwell. Without the necessary substantial investment in the village’s key infrastructure, vague aspirations and the odd minor cosmetic improvement are no substitute for a properly thought out and supported long-term plan for Barwell’s future.

• The SUE plan would inevitably have a negative impact upon the area’s rich biodiversity and it is difficult to accept that green field land such as this should be lost to development where there are more suitable sites, including brownfield, where appropriate housing schemes would be welcomed.

• It is difficult to conclude anything other than the people of Barwell, and indeed residents in neighbouring settlements, were never consulted about the SUE scheme by the Borough Council in any meaningful way.

130

• The Barwell SUE proposals will also have a hugely detrimental impact on a number of neighbouring villages but none more so than Stapleton. Such a development will be detrimental to the rural character of this small community, the quality of life in the village and the general wellbeing of its residents. In this respect, the impact of vastly increased traffic through Stapleton on the A447 is of enormous concern to local residents.

• The vast majority of people believe the SUE is the wrong plan for Barwell and Stapleton as well as neighbouring settlements and residents do not want this massive development on valued green field land. The plans simply fail to provide any significant long term benefits for the community of Barwell – certainly none that outweight the disadvantages. The proposals will only produce a starkly divided community in what will be a new and totally different Barwell. Therefore, far from delivering great sustainable benefit to Barwell the SUE scheme is overwhelmingly seen as detrimental for the village and for a number of other local communities with Stapleton particularly badly hit.

County Councillor Ivan Ould (12 th April 2013) wishes to object to the application on behalf of Parishes of Stoke Golding, Higham on the Hill, Sutton Cheney, Sheepy and Witherley, on the following grounds; • The potential impact on small rural settlements of using the quickest route to places of work has not featured in the proposals. Unable to find any mitigation measures from additional traffic emanating from the SUE.

• The County Council Cabinet has recommended to the Borough Council that an Area Action Plan (AAP) is needed that assessed not just the impact of the Barwell SUE but also the Earl Shilton SUE as well. The AAP also needs to take into account the needs of MIRA. In short, the Borough Council is premature in determining the Barwell SUE in isolation from these other requirements.

• There is already flooding occurring throughout the local parishes. Any further flooding will stop commerce within the area and prevent the development of tourism.

• The original location for the SUE, adjacent to both the A5 and the northern perimeter road would not have caused either the traffic or potential flooding problems. This would be a more suitable location to that of a semi-rural village.

• Where will the cost of providing infrastructure in terms of roads, sewerage facilities, school places and road alterations be found?

A further email from Councillor Ivan Ould (received 16 April) stating that there are no mitigation measures for the Division which he represents. Mitigation measures should include chicanes to reduce traffic speeds, active speed cameras, 20 mph zones in villages, additional signage around Sutton Cheney Wharf, re-configuration of the crossroads at Dadlington/Fenn Lane and the resolution of the problems in Fenny Drayton.

Lexington Communications on behalf of the applicants have sent a letter to all members of the Planning Committee (including Councillors Bray and Gould) regarding the proposals for the Barwell SUE.

Appraisal:-

The objections raised have already been addressed and appraised within the planning committee report.

131

Report updates

• Paragraph 7.1 – refers to ‘initial public consultation on the issues papers relating to the AAP began in November 2003’. This should read:-

‘initial public consultation on the issues papers relating to the Core Strategy began in November 2003. The issues paper looked at how growth within the Borough could be accommodated. Masterplan Stakeholder Workshops on the Barwell/Earl Shilton SUE Masterplan began in July 2009 and have continued until the submission of the application.

• Paragraph 18.12 - Barwell Parish Council made reference to funds being set aside for maintaining the bowling green. Maintenance contribution for the bowling green will be provided via the s106 and will be the responsibility of the Parish Council.

• Paragraph 21.11 – Policy 3 of the Core Strategy refers to the feasibility of providing some or all of the energy needs of the SUE by sustainable on site power generation will be investigated and if viable, implemented as part of the development. A number of low and zero carbon (LZC) technologies have been investigated and are discussed within the Energy Statement (April 2012). Given the life of the development and the current rate of change in this area, the applicants have advised that the exact approach and technology mix is selected at a more appropriate point in the development process. A condition is proposed securing this.

Policy 3 of the Core Strategy also refers to provision of a children’s centre. The application proposes a children’s nursery which is the same Use Class (D1) as a children’s centre.

• Paragraph 24.1 – refers to the Leicester and Leicestershire HMA Employment Land Study. This study has been updated through the ‘The Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Area (HMA) Employment Land Study 2013. The latest Report refers to an employment land requirement of 6.5ha within the Barwell SUE.

• Paragraph 24.5 – The final sentence should read…local market commercial terms….

• Paragraph 24.6 – Final sentence should read ‘That issue has been addressed by substituting employment for residential……….’

• Paragraph 24.8 – The last bullet point should read ‘Reasonable endeavours obligations to agree sale of freehold or leasehold terms on the employment site reflecting local market commercial terms or any part of it subject to expressions of interests being made by interested parties’.

• Paragraph 25.2 – “The £1.3m is for both off-site and on-site mitigation…” – This is incorrect and should read:-

“The £1.3m is for the places required by extension to existing schools. It is estimated that the cost of the new school will be £5.35m, including furniture and fittings and all necessary site works. The developer can construct the school at their own costs to an agreed specification”

132

• Paragraph 30.7 – Refers to ‘population of brown hares on site is likely to be adversely affected by the development proposals’. The Environmental Statement (ES) states: 10.143 As a farmland species, habitat suitable for brown hare will be lost as the result of the development proposals. The surrounding agricultural land is, however, likely to provide suitable alternative habitat for this species which will also be able to use the central GI corridor along the River Tweed tributary.

To conclude, the ES finds the brown hare population is not a valuable ecological receptor (VER) in the impact assessment due to low populations. The residual impact is negligible hence no mitigation is prescribed and the site is surrounded by suitable alternative habitat and includes suitable alternative habitat in the form of the Tweed Corridor.

• Paragraph 33.4 – Note that a condition is proposed to retain the historic hedgerows and extant ridge and furrow earthworks. This can be dealt with via condition 36 in relation to archaeology.

• Paragraph 44.5 – headings are not in bold and not numbered:-

Play and Open Space (maintenance) Play and Open Space (onsite provision)

• Paragraph 44.7 – should read withdrawal space rather than withdraw space

• Paragraph 44.24 – amended to read “A contribution of £300,000 will be paid to HBBC and utilised for the purposes of apprenticeships and training opportunities in the following tranches……………………….

• Paragraph 44.30 – Reference to the size of the policing facility should be deleted. The Heads of Terms refers to a contribution towards the extension of the George Ward Centre or provision of other off-site facilities in Barwell suitable for accommodating neighbourhood policing provision.

• Paragraph 44.39 – At present the Constitutional Club has 54 parking spaces. The developer has committed to retain these spaces for the public. An application to redevelop the Constitutional Club was submitted to the Authority on 22 nd April.

Para 29. Drainage and Flood Risk – update following representations received on flooding

The Barwell SUE will be required to be in accordance with Government Policy of not increasing flood risk through the installation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). The Environment Agency and Severn Trent Water along with the Council has reviewed the evidence provided and are satisfied that with the imposition of conditions that the risk to both new and existing properties will be minimised. From April 2014 (current commencement date) a new SUDS Approval Board (located within the Leicestershire County Council) will approve all “on site” SUDS to nationally approved guidance and will be responsible for maintenance and inspection of SUDs structures such as balancing ponds, swales etc. The current system of SUDs schemes required by planning condition will

133 continue until then. SUDs are designed to reduce the run off rate from sites to mimic the undeveloped state.

Existing flooding problems relate to the watercourses and culverts currently in place and should benefit from the improvements in the watercourse proposed such as the trash screens under Barwell Park. Investigations into the current causes are carried out by the Lead Local Flood Authority team at the Leicestershire County Council to determine actions in the short term to reduce the risk of flooding under severe downpours. Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council implemented works at Mill Street following issues relating to the watercourse and culvert under Mill Street and no problems have been reported since. The reported flooding problems at Shenton are the subject of joint agency investigations to determine possible improvements. The Barwell SUE development through the application of SUDs should not worsen this current situation as flows will be attenuated. Shenton is at a confluence of watercourses and drains a large area of countryside and a small area of urban development.

Recommendation:-

Additional Conditions

Highways

• No dwelling within any phase shall be occupied unless and until street lighting has been provided on the means of access serving that dwelling in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason – In the interests of public safety and the amenities of future residents in accordance with Policy T9 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

• Dropped kerbs and ramps, suitable for wheelchairs and prams, shall be provided in the footways at all major pedestrian crossing points and at road junctions at the time such footways are constructed.

Reason – For the safety and convenience of all pedestrians but in particular, the elderly, the disabled and wheelchair, pram and pushchair users and in accordance with Policy T9 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

• No dwelling erected pursuant to this permission shall be occupied until the garage, car port and/or vehicle hard standing for that dwelling has been constructed, laid out and made available for use of the occupants and visitors of that dwelling in accordance with the approved reserved matters.

Reason – To ensure the satisfactory provision of off-street vehicle parking facilities in the interests of highway safety and the satisfactory development of the site in accordance with Policy T5 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

• No buildings erected pursuant to this permission for commercial purposes/residential shall be occupied unless and until cycle storage facilities have been installed in accordance with details submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and thereafter such facilities (or any approved alternatives) shall be maintained.

134

Reason – To ensure cyclist facilities and hence sustainable transport choices are provided and maintained in accordance with Policy T9 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

Ecology

• Before development is commenced there shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing a programme and method statement for surveying and reporting on the presence and distribution of protected species within the application site. Surveys shall be carried out at least once every 3 years in accordance with the programme and method statement. The first survey shall be carried out not later than the third anniversary of the commencement of development and ending in the year in which the development of the last house authorised by this permission is substantially completed.

Reason – To ensure that ecological surveys are kept up to date until the development is fully implemented in accordance with the overarching principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

135

Item: 03

Reference: 14/00674/FUL

Applicant: Charles Church North Midlands

Location: Land At Station Road Market Bosworth

Proposal: Erection of 64 dwellings and associated works including 2 no. balancing ponds, formal play area space and public open space (revised proposal)

RECOMMENDATION:- Refuse planning permission.

Introduction:-

This application is being reported back to Planning Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation. Material planning considerations have arisen since the Committee’s resolution to grant planning permission, subject to the applicant first signing a S106 agreement, in August 2014.

This report relates to a planning permission for the erection of 64 dwellings and associated works including two attenuation ponds, formal play space, public open space and an equipped play area. The scheme proposes 38 open market dwellings and 26 affordable dwellings.

Members will recall that this application was reported to Planning Committee on 19 August 2014 with a recommendation to approve subject to conditions and a S106 Agreement to secure planning obligations. The Committee agreed with the officer recommendation subject to the Secretary of State not wishing to call the application in for his own determination and a S106 Agreement being satisfactorily completed. The previous report is attached for information.

On 20 November 2014, the council received notification from the Secretary of State that he does not wish to call-the application in for his own determination. The Secretary of State advised in his letter that the decision should be taken by the council, as Local Planning Authority.

Since the Secretary of State’s decision, discussions have taken place with the applicant and relevant legal representatives with a view to concluding the S106 agreement in line with the Committee’s resolution. To date, the agreement has not been completed and therefore the planning application remains undetermined.

Background to the Previous Resolution

The principle of this development was previously considered acceptable, having weighed up two key considerations. Firstly, the fact that the council did not, at the time, have a five year housing land supply. Secondly, taking account of the status and weight that could be given at that time to the emerging Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Development Plan. For reasons that are appraised in detail below these factors, as key material considerations, have now progressed since the Committee previously resolved to grant permission.

The conclusions reached by Committee with regard to representations received and other relevant planning considerations (including highway safety, residential amenity, design/layout and landscaping) remain applicable to the re-consideration of this application and are set out

136 in full in the attached report. While Members are entitled to reach a different view with regard to those matters, this would need to be substantiated with the appropriate justification. The Committee is advised that changes in circumstances do not change any of the conclusions that were previously reached and aside from considering the principle of the development, the only issue that requires further consideration is impact on views / vistas and landscape character having regard to the contents of the emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan.

Policy:-

National Policy Guidance

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) 2014 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010.

Hinckley & Bosworth Core Strategy 2009

Policy 7: Key Rural Centres Policy 11: Key Rural Centres Stand Alone Policy 15: Affordable Housing Policy 16: Housing Density, Mix and Design Policy 17: Rural Needs Policy 19: Green Space and Play Provision. Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan 2001

Policy RES5: Residential Proposals on Unallocated Sites Policy IMP1: Contributions Towards the Provision of Infrastructure and Facilities

137

Policy REC2: New Residential Development - Outdoor Open Space Provision for Formal Recreation Policy REC3: New Residential Development - Outdoor Play Space for Children Policy NE5: Development within the Countryside Policy NE12: Landscaping Schemes Policy NE14: Protection of Surface Waters and Groundwater Quality Policy BE1: Design and Siting of Development Policy BE16: Archaeological Investigation and Recording Policy T5: Highway Design and Vehicle Parking Standards.

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents

New Residential Development (SPG) Play and Open Space (SPD) Affordable Housing (SPD).

Other Material Policy Guidance

Emerging Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Development Plan (Submission Version - Regulation 17)

Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Pre- submission Regulation 19 Version)

Appraisal:-

Principle of Development

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. This means:-

• approving development proposals which accord with the development plan without delay • where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless − any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole − specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

Hinckley & Bosworth Core Strategy (2009)

Policy 7 of the Core Strategy states that in Key Rural Centres housing will be provided within settlement boundaries to provide for a mix of housing. Market Bosworth is defined as a Key Rural Centre due to the local services and facilities it has in place.

Policy 11 of the Core Strategy states that through the plan period land will be allocated for a minimum of 100 dwellings to be provided within Market Bosworth that could not be met within the existing settlement boundary as defined in the 2001 Local Plan in order to maintain rural population levels. The residual requirement as of 01 October 2015 is 43 dwellings.

138

Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan (2001)

The site lies outside of the current settlement boundary of Market Bosworth, as defined on the proposals map of the adopted 2001 Local Plan and is therefore within an area designated as countryside. Saved Local Plan Policies NE5 and RES5 therefore apply.

Both Saved Policies NE5 and RES5 of the adopted Local Plan seek to protect the countryside from unsustainable development by containing new development to existing settlement boundaries and state that planning permission will only be granted for development subject to certain criteria. These criteria do not include residential development.

Emerging Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (DPD)

The emerging DPD was published in draft form in January 2014. The Site Allocations DPD identifies land to be allocated for housing in Market Bosworth to meet the Core Strategy housing figure identified in Policy 11. This document is likely to be submitted for examination in the spring with examination taking place within the summer. The pre-submission version of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD, unlike the preferred options version, does not identify the application site as a residential site to meet the Core Strategy housing requirement for Market Bosworth. Instead a site to the south of Station Road titled MKBOS02: Land South of Station Road and Heath Road has been identified. This is a mixed use allocation with an accompanying policy titled SA2: Land South of Station Road and Heath Road, Market Bosworth. This policy informs the allocation and requires the following:-

• provision of between 0.5 ha to 1 ha of additional B1, B2 and B8 employment land • provision of a minimum of 42 dwellings • provision of doctors surgery or alternative community facility • allotment provision • a safe pedestrian access off Station Road • open space in line with Policy 19 of the Core Strategy. • affordable housing provision in line with Policy 15 of the Core Strategy.

The justifications for this amendment from the preferred options document to the pre- submission version are identified in the Site Allocations Rural Justification Paper and are as follows:-

• Preferred option public consultation responses indicate a preference for this site for residential development over the previously identified preferred option site MKBOS01 and Alternative Options 1 and 2. • The Employment Land and Premises Review (July 2013) recommends a 0.5-1 ha extension to Station Road Industrial Estate. The allocation of this site for mixed uses enables this extension to be brought forward and the extension enables access to the residential development to the east. • The Landscape Character Assessment (July 2006) identifies that the landscape setting of Market Bosworth should be protected including open land which penetrates the town centre. The site would be largely screened by the public highway to the north, presenting the least visually intrusive option and would not impact on open land penetrating toward the Market Place.

Whilst this DPD is progressing and is likely to be adopted by the end of 2015 it has not yet been through examination in public and therefore the weight that can be afforded to it is limited at this stage. However, this proposal is in direct conflict with this emerging DPD as

139 this document clearly sets out the wish to allocate another site to deliver the housing needs of Market Bosworth as set out in Policy 11 of the Core Strategy.

Housing Land Supply

Paragraph 47 of the NPPF states that local authorities should identify and update annually a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements. They should also provide an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the Plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites.

Back when this application was considered in August 2014 the Council did not have a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. As per Paragraph 49 of the NPPF, the relevant policy for the supply of housing for Market Bosworth, Policy 11 of the Core Strategy, was not considered to be up to date.

As of 1 October 2014 the Council has a five year supply of housing sites and Policy 11 of the Core Strategy is considered to up-to-date.

The Planning Balance

There are three core strands underpinning the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out within the NPPF which give rise to the need for planning to perform a number of roles. These considerations are economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 8 of the NPPF sets out that these roles should not be undertaken in isolation because they are mutually dependent. Therefore these roles need to be balanced and a cost benefit analysis undertaken to determine whether a development is considered to be sustainable. The NPPF clearly defines the three dimensions of sustainable development as follows:-

Economic

It is considered that the local economy would benefit through the creation of jobs for the construction of the development itself, as well as securing financial contributions for the provision and future maintenance of local infrastructure.

Social

The scheme provides for a mix of both market and affordable housing appealing to a wide spectrum within the local market and appealing to groups who may have otherwise been excluded from the locality. There is a range in the type, mix and design of the dwellings. Overall, the scheme would contribute towards the supply of housing which would enhance the quality, vibrancy and health of the local community.

Environmental

The dwellings proposed would be built to reflect the character of the surrounding area however there would be a loss of countryside and open views to the north of Station Road. This would result in a degree of landscape and therefore environmental harm.

Prematurity & the Emerging Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan

Paragraph 216 within Annex 1: Implementation of the NPPF provides guidance on the issue of attributing weight to an emerging plan. It states:-

140

‘From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight (unless other material considerations indicate otherwise) to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:- a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given) b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given) c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the framework, the greater the weight that may be given).’

This advice is largely repeated through the NPPG in relation to prematurity but also adds the following:-

‘in the context of the Framework and in particular the presumption in favour of sustainable development - arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies and any other material consideration into account. Such circumstances are likely, but not exclusively, to be limited to situations where both: a) the development is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions above the scale location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging neighbourhood plan b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area.’

The NPPG also states that refusal on the grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified before the end of the local planning authority publicity period in the case of a Neighbourhood Plan. When permission is refused on prematurity grounds, the planning authority will need to indicate clearly how the grant of planning permission for the development would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process.

The former Planning Minister Nick Boles affirmed this position in parliament on 17 July 2013 where he stated the following:-

"I want to share with my right hon. and hon. friends the difficulty of the position that some of them want the Government to take, which is the suggestion that an emerging plan should immediately be given substantial weight in any decision on a planning application. That could simply create the problem that every community in the country that wanted to oppose a development might start the process of working up a neighbourhood or local plan and then take their own sweet time about it. That would immediately create an opportunity for communities to block all development by simply saying that they were engaged in a plan- making process. That is why there must be a sense that a plan has reached a relatively advanced stage before it can be given substantial weight."

The process and regulations for the formulation and adoption of a Neighbourhood Development Plan are set out in The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012.

The Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Area was first designated for the purposes of neighbourhood planning in February 2012.

Since then the Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Forum has undertaken a number of public consultation events to gain the views and aspirations of the local community to feed-in and

141 develop the form and content of the NDP. This led to the development of a consultation draft NDP. This draft NDP went out to public consultation through the pre-submission consultation stage (Regulation 14) in June 2014 and was completed on 25 July 2014.

The Neighbourhood Forum took account of the representations made through the consultation and then submitted the NDP and consultation statement submitted to the Council in November 2014 (Regulation 15).

Between 24 November 2014 and 9 January 2015 the Council formally publicised the NDP (Regulation 16) for comments. Following the publication period the Council appointed an independent examiner in accordance with Regulation 17.

The examiner requested a one day informal hearing (17 February 2015) to assist the examiner's consideration of Policy BD2 which proposes the mixed use allocation of land south of Station Road. The examiner sought to establish if access can be secured through the industrial area that lies between Station Road and the proposed development at a cost which will enable the development to be viable.

At the time of writing this report the examiner’s report on the soundness of the NDP has not been received (Regulation 18). Following this it is expected that the NDP will proceed to a referendum in due course. Subject to support for the NDP at the referendum, the Council will then proceed to vote to adopt the NDP as part of the development plan (Regulation 19 & 20) where it can be afforded full weight in decision taking.

A number of issues were submitted to the Neighbourhood Forum through the Regulation 14 (consultation) stage, challenging the consistency of some of the proposed policies of the NDP (Allocation Policy BD2, Landscape Policy CE4 and Local Green Space Policy CE2) in relation to the NPPF. The Neighbourhood Forum took account of those concerns and have made revisions to the NDP to seek to make those policies fully NPPF compliant.

It is highly likely that if the NDP is supported by the local community through the referendum that the Borough Council will adopt the NDP as part of the development plan given that the Council has expressed its strong support for neighbourhood planning and empowering local communities to help shape and guide development their areas.

It is now considered that the Market Bosworth NDP has reached an advanced stage where it can now be given substantial weight.

The emerging NDP does not prevent development on sites that have not been allocated and it is recognised that growth may be required in future years to respond to changing circumstances. However, it is considered, in accordance with the guidance as set out in the NPPG, that this proposed development of 64 dwellings would be so substantially different to the strategy set out in the emerging NDP, by taking the remaining residual housing requirement for Market Bosworth, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process. A decision to grant permission would in effect predetermine decisions above the scale, location and allocation of the proposed residential development of up to 100 dwellings and employment land at Land to the South of Station Road as set out in Policy BD2.

Whilst the allocated amount of 100 dwellings set out in Policy 11 of the Core Strategy is expressed as a minimum to allow further sustainable growth through the plan period if necessary, it is considered that at this time further significant growth above that allocated amount is not required and would effectively prejudice the outcome of the NDP plan-making process and aspirations of the community of Market Bosworth who have progressed to this advanced stage in the preparation of their plan.

142

Furthermore, the proposed new development and allocation of Land to the South of Station Road as set out in Policy BD2 is considered to be central to the NDP achieving its aims and aspirations of delivering affordable homes and jobs, whilst retaining the character and setting of Market Bosworth by protecting its key views and vistas.

Summary

In August 2014 when this scheme was resolved to be approved (subject to a S106 agreement), the NDP had only just reached the Regulation 14 stage and therefore it could not be considered to be at an ‘advanced’ stage. Furthermore, at that time the Council did not have a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. Both these issues were key material considerations that weighed heavily in favour of the Council resolving to grant permission at that time subject to the Secretary of State not wishing to call the application in for his own determination. This situation has now changed.

The NDP has reached a stage where national guidance in the NPPG indicates that substantial weight should now be given to its policies. For the reasons discussed above this proposal would conflict with those policies and particularly Policy BD2 which sets out an allocation of another site which the community consider can meet its aspirations. The proposal is therefore both premature to the emerging NDP and in conflict with its policies. In addition, the proposal is in conflict with the emerging Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD which also allocates the site at Land South of Station Road.

Furthermore, back in August 2014, the Council did not have a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. As of 1 October 2014 the Council does now have a five year supply. Therefore the housing supply policies as set out in the Core Strategy can be afforded full weight. Nevertheless, even if the Council still did not continue to have a five year supply the substantial weight that the NDP should now be given and the significant degree of direct conflict that this proposal would bring to the policies of the emerging NDP would weigh against the absence of a five year supply in the overall planning balance in this instance. To do otherwise would significantly and demonstrably harm the wishes of the community of Market Bosworth in achieving their aspirations through the neighbourhood planning process.

Impact upon the Character and Appearance of the Countryside & Vistas

In policy terms lies outside of the defined settlement boundary for Market Bosworth and is therefore within an area designated as countryside. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF states that the planning system should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and support thriving rural communities within it. Paragraph 109 states that the planning system should protect and enhance valued landscapes.

The design criteria i-iv within Saved Policy NE5 remains generally relevant to development within the countryside and consistent with the NPPF. The Policy states that development will only be permitted where the following criteria are met:- a) it does not have an adverse effect on the appearance or character of the landscape b) it is in keeping with the scale and character of existing buildings and the general surroundings c) where necessary it is effectively screened by landscaping or other methods d) the proposed development will not generate traffic likely to exceed the capacity of the highway network or impair road safety.

143 immediately adjoining the site to the west (beyond application ref: 13/00778/FUL) is not subject to this application and remains in its existing agricultural use. To the west of this lies the Battlefield Line Railway and beyond this the residential development on land known as Waterside Mede adjacent to Beaulah House. The land immediately adjoining the site to the east is not subject to this application and remains in its existing agricultural use.

Whilst the site would still be bound immediately to the east and west by agricultural land, the land immediately beyond, to both sides is residential, with the land to the south residential and industrial in use. It is therefore considered that this site is not a traditional, 'typical' and open countryside location, as it is located in close proximity to the existing pattern and grain of development to the west of Market Bosworth. As such, it is considered that the proposed residential development would occupy a natural 'infill' to the north of Station Road.

It is recognised that the introduction of residential dwellings at two storeys in height would compromise the views and openness of vistas when looking north into the countryside from Station Road and whilst the layout does still provide some views to the north through gaps in dwellings the overall visual outlook would be impacted upon to a point whereby it would not comply with design criterion (a) as set out in Policy NE5 of the Local Plan and the desire to protect valued landscapes as set out in Paragraph 109 of the NPPF.

Furthermore, Policy CE3 of the emerging Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan seeks to resist development that would harm important views into or vistas of Market Bosworth. Vista 11 as shown on page 34 of the NDP is described as follows:-

‘11 - Standing on Station Road pavement at the junction with Godsons Hill the vista starts with housing on the west side enclosed by trees, turning northwards to mature trees and wooded areas stretching across the golf course the land undulates with fields and woods to the horizon. Turning east across grazing land which rises up to woods with a couple of dwellings on the edge to the right. This vista is important because it gives extensive views of north west Leicestershire.’

On balance whilst it is accepted that the proposal would compromise a view and vista that is of value to the local community, the loss of this view is not considered to be significantly harmful in environmental terms to detract from the overall social and economic sustainable benefits the scheme would bring in terms of delivering housing. However, the proposal would result in a degree of conflict with Policy CE3 of the emerging Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan. This policy should now be afforded substantial weight given the status of the NDP. It is concluded that the scheme would compromise an important vista that is of value to the local community leading to harm and further conflict with the emerging NDP, detrimental to the aspirations of the community.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposal would be premature to the emerging Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Development Plan. The proposal would directly conflict with policies of the emerging NDP which should now be given substantial weight.

The proposal has been considered in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out within the NPPF. The benefits of the scheme in terms of delivering housing in a sustainable settlement where there is still a residual requirement has been carefully balanced against the demonstrable harm that would occur by the proposal undermining the aspirations of the local community in adopting a neighbourhood plan which allocates a site to deliver the growth required to meet the needs of Market Bosworth. The proposal would also conflict with policies of the emerging NDP that seek to protect important vistas into and out of Market Bosworth.

144

The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy BD2 and CE3 of the emerging Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan, Policy 11 of the Core Strategy, Policies NE5 and RES5 of the Local Plan and the overarching guidance as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Policy Guidance.

RECOMMENDATION:- Refuse Planning Permission.

Summary of Reasons for Recommendation and Relevant Development Plan Policies:

Reasons:-

1 The development proposed would be premature in respect of the emerging Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan and would conflict with Policy BD2 which allocates an alternative site and Policy CE3 which seeks to safeguard important vistas. This would result in a significant and demonstrable harm by undermining the community’s aspirations for growth through the neighbourhood planning process. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the emerging Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan, Policy 11 of the Hinckley & Bosworth Core Strategy 2009, Policies NE5 and RES5 of the Hinckley & Bosworth 2001 and the overarching intentions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Contact Officer:- Simon Atha Ext 5919

145

APPENDIX 1 – Committee Report 19 August 2014

Reference: 14/00674/FUL

Applicant: Charles Church North Midlands

Location: Land At Station Road Market Bosworth

Proposal: Erection of 64 dwellings and associated works including 2 no. balancing ponds, formal play area space and public open space (revised proposal)

RECOMMENDATION:- Grant subject to S106 obligations and subject to conditions.

Introduction:-

This application is to be considered at Planning Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, as it is a major application.

Application Proposal

Full planning permission is sought for the erection of 64 dwellings and associated works including 2 no. attenuation ponds, formal play space, public open space and an equipped play area. The scheme proposes 38 open market dwellings and 26 affordable dwellings.

This is a revised proposal following refusal of planning application 13/00520/FUL. This application was refused at Planning Committee on 04 February 2014 for the following three reasons:-

1. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development will result in an adverse urbanising effect of the landscape, resulting in harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, contrary to the requirements of Saved Policy NE5 of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan (2001) and the requirements of Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development would fail to deliver sustainable development in so far as it would restrict the growth of existing businesses through introducing a residential use in close proximity to a noisy industrial use. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate how noise generated by the nearby JJ Churchill factory could be satisfactorily mitigated to safeguard residential amenity. Approval of the proposal would therefore be contrary to Saved Policy BE1 (criterion h) of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan (2001) and Paragraphs 17 and 19 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed development would bring forward significant residential development on an unallocated site ahead of full consideration and consultation of the Site Allocation and Generic Development Control Policies DPD and would undermine the aspirations to bring forward the community's preferred site for new housing development as set out in the emerging Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD and the emerging Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Development Plan. The proposal if approved would therefore be contrary to the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework with regards to plan making and consultation.

146

The applicant has submitted an appeal against the Council's decision to refuse application ref. 13/00520/FUL and a public inquiry is scheduled for 09 - 11 September. Prior to the appeal being heard the applicant has decided to resubmit a revised proposal reducing the number of dwellings by one unit from 65 to 64 dwellings and making revisions to the layout to re-locate plots 13 - 18 further back into the site in an attempt to overcome the noise concerns that were raised previously. These revisions present the Council with an opportunity to consider the merits of the planning application afresh against all material planning considerations.

Vehicular access is proposed from the existing access which serves Kyngs Golf Club off Station Road to the south east of the site.

Off-site works to Station Road include the widening of an existing footway to 2.5 metres to the east of the access site and to the west of the access site, up to the byway and access for Wharf Farm, in addition to a new junction layout including a ghost island right turn.

Application 13/00778/FUL for additional formal play space adjoining the on-site formal play space was approved previously but would be linked to this application through the S106 Agreement.

The Site and Surrounding Area

The site is roughly rectangular in shape measuring approximately 2.97 hectares and bounded by mature hedgerows to the north and west. A mature hedgerow which runs through the site is set to be retained and an existing pond utilised and enlarged for the central attenuation zone.

The site is bound to the north by the Kyngs Golf and Country Club, to the south by Station Road and to the east and west by agricultural fields.

The site is located outside the settlement boundary of Market Bosworth, as defined by the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan Proposals Map (2001).

Technical Documents submitted with application

Access Proposals Arboricultural Survey Archaeological Survey Design and Access Statement Ecological Appraisal Flood Risk Assessment Great Crested Newt Survey Planning Statement Statement of Community Involvement Transport Assessment Travel Plan.

147

Relevant Planning History:-

14/00001/TPORD Tree Preservation Order 10.04.14

13/00520/FUL Erection of 65 dwellings and Refused 11.02.14 associated works including 2 balancing ponds, formal play area space, public open space.

13/00778/FUL Development for 664 sqm of Approved 11.02.14 formal play space, linked with application 13/00520/FUL

Consultations:-

No objection subject to conditions have been received from:-

Environment Agency Severn Trent Water Director of Environment and Transport (Highways) Directorate of Chief Executive (Ecology) Directorate of Chief Executive (Archaeology) Head of Community Services (Pollution) Head of Corporate and Scrutiny Services (Tree Officer) Head of Community Services (Land Drainage) Head of Business Development and Street Scene Services (Waste Minimisation).

Site notices and a press notice were displayed. In addition neighbours immediately adjoining the site were consulted.

Market Bosworth Parish Council raises the following objections:- a) open intrusion into the countryside b) inadequate drainage and risk of flooding c) proposed attenuation zones will be bogs d) community involvement document is incorrect e) housing mix proposed in unsuitable for the needs of the town f) the S106 money would not help relieve pressure on existing services g) highway safety issues on Station Road h) design of the dwellings is poor i) premature to the emerging Neighbourhood Plan j) responsibility for maintenance of hedgerows and open space.

Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Forum raises the following objections:- a) application is premature to the emerging Neighbourhood Plan b) would significantly jeopardise the Neighbourhood Plan making process c) the Borough Council nominated Market Bosworth to the vanguard neighbourhood plan d) the emerging plan is at an advance stage but has not been adopted e) the proposal would destroy a key approach and view into town from the west and remove a key vista to the north f) contrary to emerging policies of the Neighbourhood Plan g) contrary to the NPPF h) contrary to the principles of localism i) the Planning Minster has recently written a statement to support neighbourhood planning.

148

Market Bosworth Society raises the following objections:- a) number of dwellings being proposed for the site too high - housing needs remains at no more than 41 b) public consultation - no provision of bungalows c) public highway - remaining stretch of footway is still inadequate d) no acknowledgement of the amount of S106 funding which will be required to cover the expansion of services e) no reference to a routing restriction f) no mention of vehicle washing facilities g) no mention of who will take responsibility for the management and maintenance of green spaces and boundaries h) dwellings will only exacerbate the current parking problems with parking in the centre i) previous recommendations on this site was for a 40 metres set back from Station Road to preserve the green aspect of this approach to the town and horse chestnut trees and to allow the carriageway to be widened and construction of an off-road footway and cycleway - this is still viable and could be achieved if numbers were reduced to 41 j) 70% of respondents from the public consultation did not support this development. k) landscape impact, views into the site from surrounding public rights of way l) the development at the adjacent Waterside site was a brownfield redevelopment m) the town is actually the size of a village n) the approaches to Market Bosworth are important green fingers providing a transition between town and countryside o) application would be premature to the Neighbourhood Plan.

David Tredinnick MP has raised the following objections:- a) this revised proposal is subject to an appeal b) should as a matter of principle refuse c) neighbourhood Plan does not allocate site d) principles of localism must be upheld e) firms on the industrial estate will be forced to relocate f) proposal will result in landscape impact g) flooding problems will be created h) concern with the way plans have been displayed on the website, some from the previous proposal.

Councillor Michael Mullaney has raised the following objections:- a) the previous planning application was refused by Planning Committee b) the Neighbourhood Plan Forum has spent time engaging showing that 64% of residents supported the site to the south of Station Road c) the site south of Station Road would allow local firms to expand creating a boost to the local economy d) site south of Station Road is consistent with the Council's preferred site allocation e) the land north of Station Road is protected by the NDP's Views and Vistas map f) the site proposed is outside of the settlement boundary.

12 letters of objection were received from local residents. Summary of comments received:- a) any houses above the residual is unnecessary and unsustainable b) Market Bosworth cannot cope with additional housing and population c) current open green spaces in Market Bosworth should be preserved, ruining natural beauty

149 d) ruining the approach into Market Bosworth e) new residential development is not required - vacant properties at Pipistrelle Drive development and Sedgemere development has not commenced f) creating a ribbon development is exercising bad planning g) would destroy a greenfield site h) outside the settlement boundary i) open aspect from the canal disappearing j) unacceptable impact upon the landscape setting k) style of houses are not in keeping with Market Bosworth l) the statement on public consultation is inaccurate and misleading m) the developer has not participated in the neighbourhood plan process and ignored requests and have not engaged with a significant proportion of the local population n) the formal consultation for the 2009 Site Allocations and Development Control Policies DPD resulted in clear preference for land behind the industrial estate o) NPD public event and website poll all show a clear preference for the land to be developed south of Station Road p) mixed use development being brought forward to the south of Station Road through the Market Bosworth plan offers the potential to meet the needs of existing and future employers and other community benefits q) It is premature to consider this application; wiser to await the outcome of the neighbourhood plan r) site is liable to flooding with springs and high water table s) additional water will be brought through the pipe out onto land t) the proposed sewage pumping station needs to have adequate storage capacity. u) Increase in traffic v) access to Churchill site must not be restricted, layout does not show the Churchill entrance w) creating an additional 130 cars travelling up and down through the village x) a routing restriction for vehicles over 7.5 tons should be agreed y) poor pedestrian access between the north west part of the development to schools and local service centre z) footpath too narrow and not fit for purpose aa) lorry washing facilities should be put on site bb) housing too close to engineering firm could result in future complaints and impact upon their operations - a greater buffer/distance is required cc) site has a pond and wildlife which has not been considered dd) wildlife will no longer have anywhere to live ee) need for bungalows ff) does not provide the kind of dwellings needed by the community gg) health and education will not be able to cope hh) private right of way between two play areas.

Policy:-

National Policy Guidance

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) 2014 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010.

Hinckley & Bosworth Core Strategy 2009

Policy 7: Key Rural Centres Policy 11: Key Rural Centres Stand Alone Policy 15: Affordable Housing

150

Policy 16: Housing Density, Mix and Design Policy 17: Rural Needs Policy 19: Green Space and Play Provision.

Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan 2001

Policy RES5: Residential Proposals on Unallocated Sites Policy IMP1: Contributions Towards the Provision of Infrastructure and Facilities Policy REC2: New Residential Development - Outdoor Open Space Provision for Formal Recreation Policy REC3: New Residential Development - Outdoor Play Space for Children Policy NE5: Development within the Countryside Policy NE12: Landscaping Schemes Policy NE14: Protection of Surface Waters and Groundwater Quality Policy BE1: Design and Siting of Development Policy BE16: Archaeological Investigation and Recording Policy T5: Highway Design and Vehicle Parking Standards.

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents

New Residential Development (SPG) Play and Open Space (SPD) Affordable Housing (SPD).

Other Material Policy Guidance

Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Pre- Submission)

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (2010)

The SHLAA Review was published in October 2010 and the proposed site forms part of the site assessed under reference AS392. The site was identified as suitable, available and achievable and as a result identified as being developable with a timeframe for development between 2015 - 2020. The SHLAA has been updated in September 2013 and the site is still identified as suitable, available and achievable and is also still developable. The timeframe for development is 2018 - 2023.

Appraisal:-

The main considerations in the determination of this application are:-

• principle of development • housing land supply • prematurity • Impact upon the character and appearance of the countryside • overall appearance, scale, design and layout • Impact on residential amenity • highway considerations • drainage and flood risk • archaeology • ecology & trees • affordable housing • Infrastructure improvements.

151

Principle of Development

Core Strategy

Emerging Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) The emerging DPD was published in draft form in January 2014. The consultation period ended in March and responses are being considered before submission to the Secretary of State. Given that this document is emerging and has not been through examination in public the weight that can be afforded to it is limited at this stage.

The Site Allocations DPD identifies land to be allocated for housing in Market Bosworth to meet the Core Strategy housing figure identified in Policy 11.

The Pre-submission version of the Site Allocations DPD, unlike the preferred options version, does not identify the application site as a residential site to meet the Core Strategy housing requirement for Market Bosworth. Instead a site to the south of Station Road titled MKBOS02: Land South of Station Road and Heath Road has been identified. This is a mixed use allocation with an accompanying policy titled SA2: Land South of Station Road and Heath Road, Market Bosworth. This policy informs the allocation and requires the following:-

The justifications for this amendment from the preferred options document to the pre- submission version are identified in the Site Allocations Rural Justification Paper and are as follows:-

152

The Pre-submission Site Allocations DPD was approved at Full Council on 21 January 2014 to proceed to public consultation and subsequent submission to the Secretary of State. The public consultation ran from February to March 2014. The representations received are currently being considered at it is likely that the plan is expected to be submitted to the Secretary of State later in 2014. An examination in public is then likely to be held in the first half of 2015.

However, even if that document were approved, this does not mean that speculative applications for housing developments on other sites within or close to the settlement should not be approved. Such applications need to be considered on their merits against all relevant policies and other material planning considerations taking into account the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Housing Land Supply

When the previous application was considered the Council had a five year supply of housing sites. At that time the Council was projecting significant delivery of the planned number of dwellings later in the plan period at the two SUEs at Barwell and Earl Shilton. This is known as the residual method (Liverpool) where early shortfalls in housing delivery are made up later in the plan period. Whereas the alternative method, which the recently published National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) advocates, is that where possible the past undersupply of housing should be dealt with within the next five years (the Sedgefield approach). Due the outcome of several recent appeals, and the delays with the delivery of the two SUEs the Council accepts the latest approach as set out in the NPPG that the Sedgefield approach is now the most appropriate method of calculating housing land supply to boost the supply of housing and make up the shortfall in providing deliverable sites.

Therefore as of April 2014, the Borough Council does not have a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.

Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites.

153

The housing supply policies as set out in the Core Strategy are not considered to be up-to- date. The presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in Paragraph 14 of the NPPF therefore applies.

Paragraph 14 states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. This means:-

Where the Council does not have a five year housing supply, in accordance with Paragraphs 49 and 14 of the NPPF housing proposals must be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development to help significantly boost the supply of housing.

Local Plan

Both Saved Policies NE5 and RES5 of the adopted Local Plan seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and state that planning permission will only be granted for development subject to certain criteria. The criteria do not include residential development. However, in light of the recent Stanton under Bardon appeal decision (ref: APP/K2420/A/13/2200224) Policies RES5 and NE5 are not considered to be consistent with the intentions of the NPPF when considering residential development, and as such these polices affords only limited weight in consideration of the application.

The Planning Balance

Economic - It is considered that the local economy would benefit through the creation of jobs for the construction of the development itself, as well as securing financial contributions for the provision and future maintenance of local infrastructure.

Social - The scheme provides for a mix of both market and affordable housing, which is appraised below, appealing to a wider spectrum within the local market and appealing to groups who may have otherwise been excluded from the locality. There is a range in the type, mix and design of the dwellings. Overall, the scheme would contribute towards a housing shortfall which would enhance the quality, vibrancy and health of the local community.

154

Environmental - The dwellings proposed would be built to reflect the character of the surrounding area and this point is appraised in further detail below, in addition to the impact of the development upon the countryside and local environment.

Summary

In summary, in accordance with Saved Policies NE5 and RES5, residential development is not supported outside the settlement boundary. However, these policies are considered to have limited weight and the NPPF states that in the absence of a five year supply of housing sites, housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This is a key material consideration which should be afforded significant weight.

It is clear following recent appeal decisions such as those at Three Pots and Workhouse Lane, Burbage and Main Street, Stanton-under-Bardon that the onus of the Council achieving a five year supply of deliverable housing sites applies Borough wide.

In the absence of a five year supply of housing sites, the settlement housing targets as set out in the Core Strategy can be afforded little weight. Furthermore, the housing requirements as set out in Policy 7 is expressed as a minimum to allow the spatial distribution of housing to be revised as necessary to meet the Council's full objectively assessed housing need.

The proposal would help to meet the Council's housing shortfall and would contribute towards achieving a five year supply of housing land. The development is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle subject to all other material considerations being addressed.

Prematurity

Paragraph 216 within Annex 1: Implementation of the NPPF provides guidance on the issue of attributing weight to an emerging plan. It states:- From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight (unless other material considerations indicate otherwise) to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:- d) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given) e) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given) f) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

This advice is largely repeated through the NPPG in relation to prematurity but also adds the following:-

"in the context of the Framework and in particular the presumption in favour of sustainable development - arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies and any other material consideration into account. Such circumstances are likely, but not exclusively, to be limited to situations where both: c) the development is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions above the scale location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging neighbourhood plan

155 d) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area."

The former Planning Minister Nick Boles affirmed this position in parliament on 17 July 2013 where he stated the following:-

Therefore when determining the weight to be attributed to an emerging NDP and whether prematurity could be applied to this application a number of issues must first be examined:-

1. the stage of preparation of the plan with weight to be attributed if the emerging plan is considered to be at an advanced stage 2. the level of unresolved objections to policies within the plan 3. the consistency of the policies within the plan to those within the NPPF 4. whether granting permission for this application would prejudice the outcome of the NDP making process.

These four points are addressed in relation to Market Bosworth NDP below.

1. The Stage of Preparation of the Plan.

The Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Area was first designated for the purposes of neighbourhood planning in February 2012.

Since then the Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Forum has undertaken a number of public consultation events to gain the views and aspirations of the local community to feed-in and develop the form and content of the NDP. This has led to the development of the Consultation Draft Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan. This draft NDP went out to public consultation through the Pre-submission Consultation stage (Regulation 14) in June 2014 and was completed on 25th July 2014. This stage is a compulsory consultation stage which is required before the draft NDP is submitted to the local planning authority under Regulation 15. Therefore the emerging NDP must complete the following stages before being 'made' as an extant planning document by the Borough Council.

• Regulation 15 - Forum to submit to the local planning authority:-

• the draft NDP (amended to have regard to the previous consultation findings) • a consultation statement identifying who was consulted, the response and how this has been dealt with through the plan

156

• a statement explaining how the plan meets the basic conditions.

• Regulation 16 - Publication Stage in which the LPA publicises and consults on the draft NDP.

• Regulation 17 - Submission Stage in which an examiner is appointed by the local planning authority.

• The Referendum (regulated by Neighbourhood Planning Referendum Regulations 2012) in which the community of Market Bosworth vote in favour (or not) for the plan.

• Regulation 19 & 20 - The 'Made' Stage in which the Borough Council votes to 'Make' (adopt) the plan, subject to a favourable referendum vote.

As noted above "refusal on the grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified before the end of the local Planning authority publicity period." Therefore for a plan to be considered to be at an 'advanced stage' it should be at the end of the local planning authority publicity stage (Regulation 16). The NDP is currently at the Regulation 14 stage and it is considered to be a number of weeks before the NDP will reach the end of the publicity stage (this stage involves a minimum six week consultation period).

2. The Level of Unresolved Objections

It is currently not possible for the Borough Council to assess the level of unresolved objections to the policies in the emerging NDP. This is only achievable once the Neighbourhood Forum has completed their pre-submission consultation and submitted their consultation statement to the local planning authority under Regulation 15, in addition to the completion of the local planning authority publicity stage (Reg 16). This is highlighted through the NPPG which states "The consultation statement submitted with the draft neighbourhood plan should reveal the quality and effectiveness of the consultation that has informed the plan proposals."

As such little to no weight should be attributed to the policies in the emerging plan because the level of objections to its policies are currently unknown. The exception to this is the Borough Council's consultation response to the Neighbourhood Forum's Pre-submission consultation which has resulted in a number of significant objections which have yet to be resolved.

3. The Consistency of the Policies with the NPPF

The consistency of the emerging policies of the NDP is not formally assessed until the plan is submitted to the examiner at the Submission Stage (Regulation 17). Therefore it is considered that very limited weight can currently be attributed to the emerging policies of the NDP as the consistency of the policies with the NPPF is unknown.

Notwithstanding this, the Borough Council have undertaken a preliminarily assessment of this consultation draft of the NDP through the pre-submission consultation (Regulation 14) in regards to its consistency with the NPPF. Through the Borough Council's formal consultation response, a number of consistency issues have been identified which in particular includes the Allocation Policy BD2, Landscape Policy CE4 and Local Green Space Policy CE2. In particular the policies do not provide exception criteria to establish when it would be considered appropriate to develop a site and also fail to provide a practical framework within which decisions of planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency.

157

4. Whether Granting Permission Would Prejudice the Outcome of the NDP Making Process.

The proposed scheme includes the provision for 64 dwellings to the north of Station Road which would contribute to the minimum residential requirement of 100 dwellings for Market Bosworth as set out in the Core Strategy. This site is not identified for any specific purpose other than identifying a vista across the site from Station Road, providing a view of the golf course and countryside beyond. Whilst the proposed scheme could adversely affect this vista, this must be balanced against the benefits of the proposal. In addition the housing figure is set as a minimum to enable flexibility for sustainable growth over the plan period. Whilst the NDP seeks to allocate an alternative site to meet its housing requirement, the promotion and development of that other site is not considered to prevent further sustainable development in Market Bosworth from coming forward.

This is recognised in the Consultation Draft NDP through the following statements:-

"The Plan is not a rigid 'blue-print', with flexibility being required as further challenges and opportunities arise over time"

"The Community recognises that housing development can bring wider benefits that support sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities and a well-balanced population which is vital to the on-going viability of local services and prosperity of the area in light of the community's increasingly ageing population"

Summary

The NDP can not currently be considered to be at 'an advanced' stage as it hasn't been submitted to the local planning authority for the publication stage (Regulation 16). The level of unresolved objections has not yet been established as the Consultation Statement has not been produced and emerging policy conformance with the NPPF has yet to be assessed by an examiner. In addition, the NDP provides no allocation for the application site, other than the vista over the golf course and countryside and seeks to support sustainable development. While the community's views about the importance of the NDP to the local area, in light of the issues raised above, it is considered that little weight should be attributed to the emerging Market Bosworth NDP at this stage of plan preparation. The former Planning Minister Nick Boles recently released a Written Ministerial Statement on Neighbourhood Planning on 10 July 2014. The Statement relates to "giving particular scrutiny to planning appeals in, or close to, neighbourhood plan areas". This is proposed to be through the recovery of planning appeals i.e. Ministers making appeal decisions rather than the Inspectorate for residential development of over 10 units in areas where a qualifying body has submitted a neighbourhood plan proposal to the LPA or where a NDP has been 'made'.

This Statement relates to the recovery (determination by the Secretary of State) of planning appeals and not planning applications. In addition, this recovery mechanism would only be applicable for appeals where an NDP has been submitted to the local planning authority i.e. the Publication Stage (Reg 15) or where the NDP has been 'Made' (Reg 19 and 20). Therefore this Ministerial Statement is not material to the consideration of this application.

Impact upon the Character and Appearance of the Countryside

158 and support thriving rural communities within it. Paragraph 109 states that the planning system should protect and enhance valued landscapes.

The design criteria i-iv within Saved Policy NE5 remain generally relevant to development within the countryside and consistent with the NPPF. The Policy states that development will only be permitted where the following criteria are met:- e) it does not have an adverse effect on the appearance or character of the landscape f) it is in keeping with the scale and character of existing buildings and the general surroundings g) where necessary it is effectively screened by landscaping or other methods h) the proposed development will not generate traffic likely to exceed the capacity of the highway network or impair road safety.

The site is bound to the south by Station Road and beyond Station Road to the south of the road by residential properties. To the south west of the road is a designated employment site. Due north of the application site is the Kyngs Golf and Country Club. The land immediately adjoining the site to the west (beyond application ref: 13/00778/FUL) is not subject to this application and remains in its existing agricultural use. To the west of this lies the Battlefield Line Railway and beyond this the residential development on land known as Waterside Mede adjacent to Beaulah House (ref's: 02/00845/OUT; 03/00652/REM; 04/00577/REM). The land immediately adjoining the site to the east is not subject to this application and remains in its existing agricultural use.

Accordingly whilst the site would still be bound immediately to the east and west by agricultural land, the land immediately beyond, to both sides is residential, with the land to the south residential and industrial in use. It is therefore considered that this site is not a traditional, 'typical' and open countryside location, as it is located in close proximity to the existing pattern and grain of development to the west of Market Bosworth. As such, it is considered that the proposed residential development would occupy a natural 'infill' to the north of Station Road.

However, on balance whilst it is accepted that the proposal would compromise a view and vista that is of value to the local community, the loss of this view is not considered to be significantly harmful in environmental terms to detract from the overall social and economic sustainable benefits of the scheme.

Housing Mix

Policy 16 of the Core Strategy requires a mix of housing types and tenures to be provided on all sites of 10 or more dwellings. In addition this policy requires at least 30 dwellings to the hectare to be achieved within Key Rural Centres unless individual site characteristics indicate otherwise.

The application proposes 64 dwellings on a 2.98 hectare site equating to a net density of 21.6 dwellings per hectare.

159

In this case, it is considered the characteristics of the site justify a lower density. The site is located on the edge of the settlement where the surrounding densities are lower. Given that the site would be on the edge of the countryside this density allows wider open spaces which will contribute to the character of the development. It is therefore considered that a higher density would be to the detriment of the surrounding countryside. This lower density scheme is therefore considered more suitable in this location.

The proposed mix is envisaged to include detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings as indicated on the layout plan, including both private market and affordable units which would comply with the requirements of Policy 16. The detailed mix of house types would be agreed as part of a reserved matters submission.

Overall Appearance, Design & Layout

The layout proposes a main access road off Station Road, running to the eastern periphery of the site - with a road running east to west through the centre of the site and four smaller roads from this creating smaller cul-de-sac style areas.

The on site informal equipped and un-equipped play space is located within the centre of the site and formal play space to the west. Plots 9 - 12, 38 - 42 and 18 provide natural overlooking upon the central play space.

Plots 4 - 6 and 60 - 64 provide a strong attractive tree lined frontage to the east of the site, whilst plots 1 - 4 and 12 face Station Road, creating a strong defined streetscene.

The revised layout repositions plots 13 - 18 further back into the site away from Station Road behind a landscaped area.

All private amenity spaces are provided to the rear of the plots and dwellings which occupy prominent positions on corner plots have been carefully considered to ensure that there are no dull or blank frontages. The external amenity spaces proposed are commensurate in size to the dwellings that they serve, and the differing sizes provide greater choice for future occupiers. The surrounding area consists of single and two-storey proportions to the south of Station Road, with the Pipistrelle Drive development consisting of 2-storey and above.

The scheme proposes a mixture of 2, 3 and 4-bed detached, semi detached and terraced dwellings of predominantly two storey proportions, so is considered reflective of existing surrounding dwellings. There are 2 plots (plots 60 and 64) which are of 2 and a half storey proportions (two storey with accommodation in the roof slope) however they occupy key focal views and are located to the eastern periphery of the site - and not on the Station Road frontage and are therefore considered to be acceptable on this basis.

In terms of footprint, the proposed dwellings occupy fairly similar footprints to dwellings on Station Road. It is considered that the footprint and configuration of plots 1 - 4 and 12 -17 facing the road frontage are acceptable in this setting, as they are reflective of the existing surrounding dwellings.

In relation to the visual appearance of the built environment, there are a range of house types proposed within the scheme. Each house type proposes different materials and design features such as bay windows, canopies, dormers, arched and flat brick headers, brick and stone cills and other brick detailing which adds additional interest to the external appearance of the site as a whole. Some house types include external chimney stacks, to reflect the local vernacular.

160

In respect of other visual elements there is a mixture of frontage, side and rear parking with single and double garages providing both natural surveillance and attractive streetscenes. The subservient scale, roof design and architectural detailing on the garaging is reflective of the style of the dwellings to which they serve.

Details have not been provided in respect of existing and proposed finished floor levels. Accordingly a condition to this affect is recommended.

Accumulatively as a result of the differing styles, features, materials and sizes it is considered that an attractive scheme would be provided that would meet the requirements as set out in Policy BE1 (criterion a) of the Local Plan.

Hard and Soft Landscaping

In respect of other visual elements there is a mixture of frontage parking, and single and double garages which are subservient in scale and using similar materials to the proposed dwellings. Parking areas and roads are broken up with both hard surfaced and permeable materials-which will be secured by way of condition.

The application shows indicative landscaping details. It is considered necessary to impose a planning condition which secures comprehensive details of all landscaping on site to ensure that it is reflective of this countryside setting. Tree species will be negotiated once a comprehensive landscaping plan has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority, which will be secured by way of a planning condition.

In respect of the future maintenance of the landscaped areas a separate condition requiring a landscape management scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority is suggested. It is considered that this should include the retention of one owner and maintenance and re-stocking regime over a 20 year time period.

Policy NE12 criterion (d) requires that the application be accompanied by details of the proposed arrangements to ensure that continued maintenance of landscaping. As such it is considered necessary to impose a condition ensuring that the scheme is maintained for a period of five years from the date of planting. During this period any trees or shrubs which die or are damaged, removed, or seriously diseased shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of a similar size and species to those originally planted at which time shall be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Elevational details have not been provided in respect of the 1.8 metre high brick wall or timber and therefore a condition is suggested to secure these details for approval in order to ensure that the fencing is appropriate in its appearance.

The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Saved Policies NE12 and BE1 in terms of visual appearance and landscaping.

Affordable Housing

As the scheme is in a rural area, Policy 15 of the adopted Core Strategy indicates that 40% of the dwellings should be for affordable housing. Of these properties, 75% should be for social rent and 25% for intermediate tenure. For this site based on 64 dwellings, the provision should be for 26 affordable units; 19 units for social rent and 7 for intermediate tenure.

As of July 2014 there are 258 waiting list applicants broken down into the following need categories: 116 require 1 bedroom properties, 88 require 2 bedroom properties, 45 require 3 bedroom properties and 9 require 4 or more bedroom properties.

161

The developer has offered a mix of 12 x 2 bedroom houses and 7 x 3 bedroom houses for social rent and 3 x 2 bedroom houses and 4 x 3 bedroom houses for shared ownership. The tenure split, design and location of affordable housing units within the scheme has been considered by the Council's Housing and Enabling Officer who is satisfied with the proposed mix given which will help to meet the housing need in Market Bosworth where small family and starter sized homes are more desirable. The affordable housing has been spread around the site in small clusters which is the preference of social housing providers and is considered to represent the best form in terms of mix.

As the site is also located within a rural area a local connections policy to Market Bosworth will be included within the S106 Agreement to require applicants in the first instance to have a connection to Market Bosworth and then to the Borough.

There is a high demand in Market Bosworth for affordable properties and the waiting list shows that there is an acute housing need. The applicant is proposing to deliver 40% affordable housing which meets the requirement as set out in Policy 15 of the Core Strategy.

It is considered that the delivery of 40% affordable housing in this rural area is a key material consideration that weighs favourably in the balance of meeting the social needs of sustainability as supported by the NPPF.

Impact on Residential Amenity

Policy BE1 (criterion i) states that development proposals should not detrimentally impact upon residential amenity.

The residential dwellings most immediately impacted upon as a result of the proposal would be those to the south of Station Road, given their proximity to the site, however given that they are sited on the opposite side of the road it is considered there is adequate distance to ensure that there would not be any significant adverse impacts upon the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings as a result of this scheme.

All other neighbouring dwellings are located at sufficient distances away not to be impacted upon as a result of the proposal. The internal arrangements of the plots within the site are not considered to give rise to any significant overbearing, overlooking and overshadowing upon the future occupiers.

In summary, the proposal is considered to have minimal impacts upon the amenities of existing and future neighbouring residents, subject to the imposition of planning conditions. As such the scheme is considered to be in accordance with Saved Policy BE1 (criterion i) of the Local Plan and would not have a significant detrimental impact upon residential amenity.

Noise

Saved Policy BE1 (criterion h) states that planning permission will be granted where the development is not adversely affected by activities in the vicinity of the site which are likely to cause a nuisance to the occupiers of the proposed development.

Reason for refusal 2 of the previous application related to noise impact. It was considered that the previous layout would restrict the growth of existing businesses through introducing a residential use in close proximity to a noisy industrial use and that the applicant had failed to satisfactorily demonstrate how noise generated by the nearby JJ Churchill factory could be satisfactorily mitigated to safeguard residential amenity. A Noise Impact Assessment has been prepared and submitted by the applicant. The Head of Community Services (Pollution) has considered the assessment and accepts that the

162 assessment uses a worst case scenario and that with appropriate mitigation to attenuate the noise from Station Road and the industrial estate that the noise levels contained within the current guidance documents can be achieved.

The proposed revised layout which increases the separation distance between the adjacent industry and the road for plots 13 - 18. The Noise Impact Assessment does assess a worst case scenario based upon noise data provided by the adjacent industry for their noisiest operation.

The applicant has provided noise predictions based upon the measured noise levels from road traffic noise and the predicted potential worst case scenario of industrial noise.

In respect of internal noise levels, the report predicts that using upgraded double glazing good internal noise levels as described in BS8233 can be achieved on plots 13 - 23 however should windows be opened then noise levels will exceed acceptable levels and mitigation is required at these locations.

In respect of external noise levels it is considered that the frontage of plots 13 - 17 would not be used for amenity but would rather comprise front pathways with limited exposure and so amenity should not be assessed here. The structure of plots 13 - 23 will provide protection to the rear gardens and a suitably located acoustic fence is proposed to ensure that noise within garden areas from the road and industry fall within guideline noise levels.

As the frequency and duration of Churchill's provided worst case noise levels can not be predicted, or determined, it is recommended that a precautionary approach should be taken. The scheme of mitigation to be used should include non-opening acoustically treated glazing, together with mechanical ventilation, to the facades of plots 13 to 23 that face the factory and the road. Acoustic fencing will be incorporated in the boundary treatment of areas not protected by the structure of plots 13 - 18.

Accordingly the Head of Community Services (Pollution) raises no objection to the scheme, subject to the imposition of a noise attenuation condition to secure the suggested mitigation measures. The mitigation measures proposed will ensure that future occupiers would not suffer from noise nuisance. In addition, the ongoing commercial and economic uses at the adjacent industrial estate including J.J. Churchill will not be compromised. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy BE1 (criterion h) and that this revised layout overcomes and allows suitable mitigation methods to be imposed to deal with the previous reason for refusal.

Highway Considerations

Saved Policy T5 seeks to ensure that development proposals do not impact upon highway safety, the satisfactory functioning of the local highway network and provide sufficient levels of parking.

The scheme has been considered by the Director of Environment and Transport (Highways) who raises no objection to the scheme,

The scheme proposes at least 2 no. car parking spaces per dwelling. Open market dwellings all have detached garaging with larger dwellings having double garages. Overall the parking provision is commensurate to the number of bedrooms proposed.

The scheme has been considered by the Director of Environment and Transport (Highways) who raises no objection to the scheme, subject to the imposition of planning conditions, subject to conditions and concludes that the road network is considered capable of serving

163 the additional development in terms of capacity. The application site is located within a reasonable walking distance to the town centre, and off-site works are proposed to provide a right-turn ghost island which is acceptable from a safety and capacity point of view.

The Director of Environment and Transport (Highways) has requested that a 2.5 metre wide footway should be provided across the blue/red line frontage of the site. This has been provided and is shown on the proposed layout plan.

In summary, the Director of Environment and Transport (Highways) has no objection subject to the imposition of planning conditions. Accordingly, subject to the imposition of planning conditions the scheme is considered to be in accordance with Saved Policy T5 of the Local Plan and overarching intentions of the NPPF.

Drainage and Flood Risk

Saved Policy NE14 of the Local Plan states that development proposals should provide satisfactory surface water and foul water measures.

The application has been accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment and the scheme has been considered by the Environment Agency, Severn Trent Water and the Head of Community Services (Land Drainage).

No part of the site is located within a flood risk zone.

No objection has been raised subject to a condition requiring drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage being submitted prior to the commencement.

In respect of foul sewage the scheme proposes an on site foul water pumping station which would be adopted by Severn Trent Water.. In summary, Severn Trent and the Head of Community Services (Land Drainage) have no objection to the scheme, subject to the imposition of planning conditions. Accordingly it is considered that the proposed works will be in accordance with Saved Policy NE14 of the Local Plan and overarching intentions of the NPPF.

Archaeology

The application has been accompanied by an Archaeological Survey in conformity with Saved Policy BE14 of the Local Plan. Paragraph 128 of the NPPF states that where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. Saved Policy BE16 states that the Local Planning Authority will seek to enter into a legal agreement or impose conditions requiring that satisfactory archaeological investigation and recording be carried out.

The scheme has been considered by LCC Archaeology who raises no objection subject to conditions for an appropriate programme of archaeological mitigation, in the form of a Ridge and Furrow Earthwork Survey to be undertaken prior to the commencement of development.

In summary subject to the imposition of a planning condition the scheme is not considered to have any significant detrimental impacts upon archaeological sites of importance and is therefore in accordance with Saved Polices BE14 and BE16 and the overarching intentions of the NPPF.

164

Ecology & Trees

Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment including securing biodiversity enhancements where possible.

The application has been accompanied by an Ecological Appraisal and Great Crested Newt Survey. LCC Ecology has considered the revised proposal and has confirmed that the Great Crested Newt Survey is satisfactory and recommends that a condition be imposed ensuring the development is undertaken in accordance with the mitigation strategy set out within the Great Crested Newt Survey Report and Mitigation Strategy.

A Tree Preservation Order has been made on the site covering seven trees to the frontage of Station Road. All trees will be retained and protected with the exception of T5 a Horse Chestnut which would have to be removed. A suitable replacement will need to be provided to compensate for this loss through the landscaping plan which has been conditioned. The Council's Tree Officer has considered the proposal based on the previous tree survey and method statement that was prepared for the previous site layout. Given that the site layout has now changed it is considered appropriate to request an updated tree survey and arboricultural method statement including tree protection measures for all retained trees to BS5837:2012. by way of condition.

The proposed development is not considered to have any significant detrimental impacts upon ecology or protected species that cannot be successfully mitigated and is therefore in accordance with the guidance as set out within the NPPF.

Developer Contributions

Due to the scale of the proposal developer contributions are required to mitigate the impact of the proposed development upon existing community services and facilities. The general approach to developer contributions must be considered alongside the requirements contained within the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (CIL). The regulations confirm that where developer contributions are requested they need to be necessary, directly related and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development proposed.

Play and Open Space

Policy 19 of the Core Strategy and Saved Local Plan Policies REC2 and REC3 seek to deliver open space as part of residential schemes. Policies REC2 and REC3 are accompanied by the SPD on Play and Open Space and Green Space Strategy 2005-2010 & Audits of Provision 2007 (Update).

As the proposed development is for housing a requirement for a contribution towards the provision and maintenance of play and open space in accordance with Saved Policies REC2 and REC3 is required.

Saved Policy REC2 states that for developments of 20 and 100 dwellings, pro rata provision for open space will be sought. However, it may be that the area of land which could be provided in relation to such development would not be of practical value as public open space for formal recreational activates. In such instances the Local Planning Authority may alternatively seek to negotiate a financial contribution towards the provision of new recreational facilities within the vicinity of the site or towards the improvement of existing facilities in the areas.

165

The formal open space is to be secured through this application and partly through application ref: 13/00778/FUL which was previously permitted for additional formal open space.

This site provides 1936 square metres of formal play space (with the adjacent development providing 664 square metres of formal play space).

Accumulatively the two applications provide a total of 2,600 square metres which meets the requirements of the amount of formal play space required for a development of 64 dwellings. It is considered on implementation that there would be users as a result of the development and that a maintenance contribution would be required to ensure that the quality of these spaces would be retained.

Accordingly this application, in direct correlation to the adjacent site would provide an area of formal play space for users as a result of the development and the existing community.

Given that the scheme provides the full 2,600 square metres as required by Policy REC2 then there is only a maintenance contribution to be taken over a 20 year period which equates to £34,320.00.

The application proposes to provide 325 square metres of equipped play space within the site (LEAP), which is the requirement for a development of this size. It is considered on implementation that there would be users as a result of the development which would add to the wear and tear of this equipment and therefore a maintenance contribution would be required to ensure that the quality of these spaces would be retained.

Given that the scheme provides the full 325 square metres as required by Policy REC3 then there is only a maintenance contribution to be taken over a 20 year period which equates to £45,955.00.

The scheme proposes to provide 1,064 square metres of informal children's play space which is in excess of the area required for a development of this size (which is 960 square metres). It is considered on implementation that there would be users as a result of the development and that a maintenance contribution would be required to ensure that the quality of these spaces would be retained.

Given that the scheme provides (and exceeds) the square metres as required by Policy REC3 then there is only a maintenance contribution to be taken over a 20 year period which equates to £11,278.40.

The onsite play and open space is required to be maintained in perpetuity. The developer is required to fund the maintenance over a 20 year period when the land is to be transferred over to the Parish Council or Borough Council, otherwise the developer may retain the public space in private ownership and maintain it accordingly.

It is considered that the play and open space contribution is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, is directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably relates in scale and kind to the proposal, and a contribution is justified in this case. Accordingly the scheme would meet the requirements of Policy 19 of the Core Strategy, Saved Policies REC2 and REC3 Local Plan and the Play and Open Space SPD. The play and open space contributions will be secured through the S106 Agreement.

166

Education

A contribution request has been made from the Local Education Authority based on Department for Education cost multipliers on a formula basis. A contribution of £185,840.79 is sought for primary education provision at St. Peter's Church of England Primary Academy. A contribution of £191,096.26 is sought for secondary education at The Market Bosworth School and Bosworth Academy. No contribution is sought for upper school education at Bosworth Academy as there is currently a surplus of places. The total contribution request is £376,937.05. The contribution would be used to accommodate existing capacity issues created by the proposed development. The request is directly, fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development proposed and would be spent within 5 years of receipt of the final payment.

Libraries

A contribution request has been made from Leicestershire County Council Library Services for £3,890.00 for use of provision and enhancement of library facilities at Market Bosworth Library and to provide additional lending stock plus audio visual and reference materials to mitigate the impact of the increase in additional users of the library on the local library service arising from the development. It is considered that the library request has not demonstrated whether the contribution is necessary and how increasing lending stock would mitigate the impact of the development on the library facility.

Civic Amenity

A contribution request has been made from Leicestershire County Council Environmental Services for £3,529.00 for enhancing the waste facilities at Barwell Civic Amenity Site including providing additional waste collection points and compaction equipment. It is estimated that there will be an additional 19 tonnes of waste generated by the development or an increase of 0.2% and given that figure, it is difficult to see that a contribution is necessary or fairly related to this development as the impact from this development would be minimal.

Transport

A request has been made from Leicestershire County Council Highways for Travel Packs including bus passes at two per dwelling for a six month period to encourage new residents to use bus services, to establish changes in travel behaviour from first occupation and promote usage of sustainable travel modes other than the car. The Travel Packs are to be funded by the developer with two application forms for bus passes at £325.00 per pass.

Improvements are sought to two bus stops on Station Road close to the site access (including providing raised and dropped kerbs to allow level access) at £3,263.00 per stop or £6,526.00 in total. Contributions are also sought to equip the bus stops with bus shelters at £4908.00 per shelter and information display cases at £120.00 per display. As occupiers of the proposed dwellings are likely to use the existing public transport facilities in close location to the site, it is considered that the increase use of the bus stops would lead to a need to provide better level access for disabled users and an enhancement in the facilities. It is considered that the request is directly, fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development proposed

Police

Leicestershire Constabulary have requested a total contribution of £20,463.00 for 40% of a new member of staff, vehicles, additional radio capacity, police database capacity, control room telephony, ANPR cameras, mobile CCTV, improvements at police premises and hub

167 equipment. It is accepted that the NPPF supports the creation of sustainable, healthy and safe communities which in the first instance should be achieved through good design and reducing opportunities for crime. This would be supported by policing and as such Police contributions could be justified to be necessary. However, it is not considered that the Police have adequately demonstrated that the contributions requested are directly related in scale and kind to the development proposed, particularly when it is unclear exactly how 40% of a staff member would be deployed and how this development could require improvements to Force HQ in Enderby as opposed to there being community policing improvements in Market Bosworth itself. As such the contribution request is not considered to be CIL compliant.

Health

A request has been received from NHS (Leicestershire and Lincolnshire) for £15,030.00 to be spent on upgrading the existing consultation rooms at Market Bosworth GP Surgery to provide an enhanced range of treatment rooms to provide a greater range of services to meet the needs of the increased population within Market Bosworth as a result of this development. It is considered that this contribution request is directly, fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development proposed.

Other Matters

Some residents have raised concern that the proposal is contrary to the Government's localism agenda. The Government has made it clear, however through the Housing and Growth Ministerial Statement (6th September 2012), that alongside the communities' power to plan comes the responsibility to meet the development and growth needs of communities and to deal effectively with proposals that will deliver homes, jobs and facilities.

In addition, concerns relating to property devaluation and loss of views are not material planning considerations.

In response to wildlife concerns, the appellant has conducted an ecological survey which has been considered and found that the development would not adversely affect wildlife or protected species.

Concerns were expressed over traffic generation and the visibility of the proposed vehicular access, together with the associated congestion and highway safety. The Highway Authority has not objected to the scheme subject to conditions to cover aspects such as the visibility of the access and parking requirements.

Representations have been received referring to the recent appeal at Crowfoot Way, Broughton Astley, Leicestershire (ref: APP/F2415/A/12/2183653) which was dismissed despite Harborough district not having a five year supply of housing sites. This appeal was recovered and The Secretary of State considered that the adverse impacts of the appeal proposal, especially in terms of the conflict with the Broughton Astley Neighbourhood Plan, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in terms of increasing housing supply. He therefore concludes that there are no material circumstances that indicate the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. The key difference in this instance is that the Broughton Astley Neighbourhood Plan was adopted as part of the development plan whereas the Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan, for the reasons discussed above, is not considered to carry material weight at this stage as it has not been to referendum or submitted to the examiner and consequently does not form part of the development plan.

Representations have been received in respect of the scheme not providing bungalows. The Council's Housing and Enabling Officer has confirmed that whilst there is evidence in the housing needs survey for bungalows, this is only one source of evidence and that there

168 should be a balance between the need to both meet the identified local need and the wider housing needs in the borough. The Council's Housing and Enabling Officer has pursued the option of bungalows, however the applicant has confirmed that providing bungalows would reduce the overall 40% affordable housing offer. Accordingly the Council's Housing and Enabling Officer wishes to maintain the current offer of the full 40% affordable housing requirement for a mix of 2 and 3 bedroomed family homes. The Council's Core Strategy Policy requires the mix of 75% for social rent and 25% for intermediate tenure. The Section 106 Agreement will contain a requirement for applicants in the first instance to have a local connection to Market Bosworth.

Concerns have been raised in respect of the routing of construction traffic especially through the town centre. The Borough Council would not be able to impose a condition as it would be difficult to differentiate between the general traffic and the specific construction traffic, and therefore it would not be enforceable. This would not be in accordance with the tests as set out in the NPPG and the same argument in respect of enforceability would apply for a Section 106 Agreement.

Drainage and flooding issues have been discussed above. Concern has been raised in respect of existing drainage issues within the vicinity of the site. It should be noted that the Environment Agency and Severn Trent Water have raised no objection and are satisfied with the technical solutions proposed to deal with surface water run off through SUDs and foul water sewage proposals. Concern has been raised in respect of the impact of the proposed development on the industrial estate directly opposite the site on Station Road. As discussed above a full Noise Impact Assessment has been carried out and it is considered that suitable mitigation methods can deal with any potential impact which is considered to be unlikely. It should be noted that commercial/industrial sites commonly are located close to residential areas in other parts of the Borough where impacts are minimal. There are existing dwellings close to the industrial estate at present along Station Road and to the south east along Heath Road. It is therefore not considered that the employment premises would be impacted upon or their existing operations limited in any way by the proposed development.

Environmental Impact Assessment

The proposed development has been screened as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011. The scale of the development proposed would not be a Schedule 1 development but would fall under Schedule 2 as it is considered to be an urban development project where the area of the development would exceed 0.5 hectares. Accordingly the proposal has been assessed under the criteria as set out in Schedule 3. Overall it is not considered to the scale, magnitude and characteristics of the development proposed, including consideration of the environmental sensitivity of the area that the proposal would constitute Environmental Impact Assessment development within the meaning of the 2011 Regulations. As such an Environmental Statement is not required.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposal would be contrary to the development plan in so far as it does not comply with Saved Policies RES5 and NE5 of the Local Plan which respectively seek to contain new housing within the settlement boundary of the village and strictly limit new development within the countryside.

Such issues are considerations that normally would weigh against such a proposal. However, the Borough does not have a five year housing land supply. As a consequence, Paragraph 49 of the NPPF directs that development plan policies governing housing land supply, such as Policy RES5 of the Local Plan, should not be considered up to date. In these

169 circumstances, full weight may not continue to be given to relevant policies of the development plan, as Paragraph 215 of the NPPF makes clear. This is an important material consideration.

Policy 11 of the Core Strategy which sets out the allocation for Market Bosworth of a minimum of 100 dwellings, which has not yet been met, is relevant and adds weight to the merits of the proposal.

The NPPF specifically states at Paragraph 49 that decision takers should consider housing applications in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the absence of a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.

The NPPF sets out that a balancing exercise must be undertaken in respect of the sustainability of the proposed development. The proposed development would be located in a reasonably sustainable location within a Key Rural Centre. The delivery of housing would bring economic and social benefits, in providing both market and affordable housing. The level of affordable housing proposed at 40%, meeting the policy requirement, is considered to be a significant material consideration that weighs heavily in the balance. The development would not impact upon ecology, archaeology or heritage. It is recognised that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the landscape and wider views of the countryside from Station Road; however overall the proposal is not considered to have significant environmental impacts that would outweigh principally the social benefits and secondly the economic benefits of the proposal in contributing towards the supply of housing.

On the issue of prematurity, it is considered, based on the most up to guidance as set out in the NPPG, that neither the emerging Site Allocations DPD nor the emerging Neighbourhood Plan are sufficiently progressed at this time to be afforded enough weight to justify refusal on the grounds of prematurity.

Collectively the above factors weigh heavily in favour of recommending that permission be granted. In reaching this recommendation the views and concerns raised by local residents have carefully been taken into account.

RECOMMENDATION:- Grant subject to S106 obligations and subject to conditions.

Summary of Reasons for Recommendation and Relevant Development Plan Policies :

That subject to an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 111 of the Local Government act 1972 or receipt of an acceptable Unilateral Undertaking under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide affordable housing and financial contributions towards play and open space, education and travel, the Chief Planning and Development Officer shall be granted delegated powers to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below.

Summary of Reasons for Recommendation and Relevant Development Plan Policies : Having regard to the pattern of existing development in the area, representations received and relevant provisions of the development plan, as summarised below according to their degree of consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework, it is considered that subject to compliance with the conditions attached to this permission, the proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan as it would contribute to the Core Strategy allocation, would not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the countryside flooding, ecology, biodiversity and archaeology, highway safety or residential amenity and would contribute to the provision of affordable housing and other infrastructure and services.

170

Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan (2001):- Policies RES5, IMP1, REC2, REC3, NE5, NE12, NE14, BE1, BE16, T5 and T9.

Local Plan 2006 - 2026: Core Strategy (2009):- Policies 7, 12,15,16,17 and19.

Conditions:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the submitted application details received by the Local Planning Authority on 10 July 2014, as follows:-

Site Location Plan 1:1250 Dwg No. EMS.2289_03-2 Rev G Planning Layout 1:500 Dwg No. A078810-35-18-004 Rev A Proposed Site Access 1:1000 Dwg No. CC654/MB/654 Plots 21 & 22 Elevations & Plans 1:100 Dwg No. CC654-OP/MB/654/OP Plots 23 Elevations & Plans 1:100 Dwg No. CC767/MB/767 Plots 48 & 58 Elevations & Plans 1:100 Dwg No. CC767-OP/MB/767-OP Plots 49 & 59 Elevations & Plans 1:100 Dwg No. CC978B/MB/978B Plots 9, 42 & 45 Elevations & Plans 1:100 Dwg No. CC978B-OP/MB/978B-OP Plots 6, 18, 20, 26 & 50 Elevations & Plans 1:100 Dwg No. CC98-OP/MB/98-OP Rev A Plots 3,19 & 27 Elevations & Plans 1:100 Dwg No. CC98/MB/98 Plots 5, 10, 40 & 56 Elevations & Plans 1:100 Dwg No. CC1274-OP/MB/1274-OP Rev A Plots 7, 11, 38, 39, 57 & 62 Elevations & Plans 1:100 Dwg No. CC1274/MB/1274 Plots 2, 8 & 41 Elevations & Plans 1:100 Dwg No. CC1585/MB/1585 Plots 1 & 61 Elevations & Plans 1:100 Dwg No. CC1763/MB/1763-2 Plots 4 & 12 Elevations 1:100 Dwg No. CC1763/MB/1763-1 Plots 4 & 12 Plans 1:100 Dwg No. CC/Burleigh-OP/MB/Burleigh-1/OP Plot 60 Plans 1:100 Dwg No. CC/Burleigh-OP/MB/Burleigh-2/OP Plot 60 Elevations 1:100 Dwg No. CC1763-OP/MB/1763-2/OP Plot 63 Elevations 1:100 Dwg No. CC1763-OP/MB/1763-1/OP Plot 63 Plans 1:100 Dwg No. CC/Burleigh-OP/MB/Burleigh-2/OP Plot 64 Elevations 1:100 Dwg No. CC/Burleigh-OP/MB/Burleigh-1/OP Plot 64 Plans 1:100 Dwg No. AF/654/MB/AF654 Rev A Plots 13, 14, 24, 30, 35, 36, 43, 51 & 52 Elevations & Plans 1:100 Dwg No. AF/654-OP/MB/AF654-OP Plots 15, 25, 31, 37, 44 & 53 Elevations & Plans 1:100 Dwg No. AF/767-OP/MB/AF767-OP Rev A Plots 17, 29, 34, 47 & 55 Elevations & Plans 1:100 Dwg No. AF/767/MB/AF767 Plots 16, 18, 32, 33, 46 & 54 Elevations & Plans 1:100 Dwg No. MB/DGS Garage to Plots 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 18, 19, 27, 28, 41, 42, 57 & 58 Elevations & Plans 1:100 Dwg No. MB/DG Garages to Plots 1, 4, 12, 60, 61, 63 & 64 Elevations & Plans 1:100 Dwg No. MB/SG Garage to Plots 7, 8, 9, 20, 38, 39, 42, 45, 50 & 62 Elevations & Plans 1:100

171

3 No development shall commence above base course until representative samples of the types and colours of materials to be used on the external elevations of the proposed dwellings, garages and pumping station shall be deposited with and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with those approved materials.

4 No development shall commence until elevation details and materials for all boundary treatments are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with those approved materials.

5 No development shall commence until the proposed ground levels of the site and proposed finished floor levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved proposed ground levels and finished floor levels shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

6 Notwithstanding the submitted plans no development shall commence until comprehensive details of hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. These details shall include:-

a) Planting plans b) Written specifications c) Schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate d) Maintenance schedule e) Implementation programme f) Areas to be grassed g) Treatment of hard surfaced areas (including the footway access from the site to Station Road).

7 The approved soft and hard landscaping scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The soft landscaping scheme shall be maintained for a period of five years from the date of planting. During this period any trees or shrubs which die or are damaged, removed, or seriously diseased shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of a similar size and species to those originally planted at which time shall be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

8 Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for protecting the proposed dwellings from noise from the adjacent industrial estate, nearby road and proposed pumping station, which includes remediation works where required and programme of implementation shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be designed to achieve good internal noise levels as detailed in BS8233 and all works which form part of the scheme shall be completed before any of the permitted dwellings are first occupied.

9 No development shall commence until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The scheme and mitigation measures shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the first dwelling and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme.

172

The scheme shall include:-

a) Surface water drainage system/s to be designed in accordance with either the National SUDs Standards, or CIRIA C697 and C687, whichever are in force when the detailed design of the surface water drainage system is undertaken. b) Limiting the surface water run-off generated by all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 30% (for climate change) critical rain storm so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site. c) Provision of surface water run-off attenuation storage to accommodate the difference between the allowable discharge rate/s and all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 30% (for climate change) critical rain storm. d) Detailed design (plans, cross, long sections and calculations) in support of any surface water drainage scheme, including details on any attenuation system, and the outfall arrangements. e) Details of how the on site surface water drainage systems shall be maintained and managed after completion and for the lifetime of the development, to ensure long term operation to design parameters. f) Retention of existing on site drainage ditches, associated pipework and flood flow routes. g) Finished floor levels are set no lower than 150mm above external finished ground levels, and above the top water level of storm water storage facilities where applicable.

10 No development shall commence until a scheme for foul drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. The details shall demonstrate that any additional flows discharging into the foul drainage network will not cause deterioration in the discharge quality or operation of any existing storm overflows/combined sewer overflows upstream or downstream on the network, or cause an increase in spill frequency or volume in the foul drainage system.

11 No development shall commence until a programme of archaeological work including a Written Scheme of Investigation have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be implemented in accordance with the approved Written Scheme of Investigation and the approved programme of archaeological works shall be carried out by a suitable qualified body approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

12 No development shall commence until a detailed construction environmental management plan has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme. The details shall include:-

a) how, during the site preparation and construction phase of the development, the impact on local residents and the environment shall be prevented or mitigated from dust, odour, noise, smoke, light and land contamination b) a plan showing how such controls will be monitored c) procedure for the investigation of complaints.

13 No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied unless and until a scheme providing for waste and recycling storage points across the site shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details should address accessibility to storage facilities for residents/collection crews, and adequate collection point space at the adopted highway boundary. The collection points should be implemented prior to the first occupation of the dwellings to which they serve.

173

14 No dwelling shall be occupied unless and until the highway works as shown on approved plans Figure 2 Proposed Site Access Drawing No.004 Rev A and Frontage Footway Drawing No. 1612-201 Rev B have been provided and are available for use.

15 No dwelling shall be occupied unless and until car parking provision has been provided within the respective curtilage of each dwelling in accordance with Planning Layout Drawing No. EMS.2289_03-2 G. The parking spaces so provided shall thereafter permanently remain available for vehicular parking. 16 No development shall commence on the site until such time as a construction traffic/site traffic management plan, including wheel cleansing facilities and vehicle parking facilities, and a timetable for their provision, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable.

17 Prior to the commencement of development a scheme, in the form of a retractable bollard, to prevent residential traffic using the access to the west of plot 23 shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed details shall be implemented and maintained thereafter. The bollard shall be kept in place except such times when access is required for maintenance of the foul water pumping station and open space.

18 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Great Crested Newt Survey Report and Mitigation Strategy by FPCR dated October 2013 (including the mitigation measures detailed within it), Pond Location Plan Figure 1 Drawing no. MLB/RJS; GCN Capture Proposals Figure 2, Drawing no. 5356-E-02; Newt Culvert Design Figure 3, Drawing no. RLS/SLS and Design Drawing Figure 4, Drawing no. 5356-E-02.

19 Prior to the commencement of development a Tree Survey and Tree Protection Plan including hedgerows to be retained shall be prepared to BS5837:2012 and submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

Reasons:-

1 To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3-5 To ensure that the development has a satisfactory external appearance to accord with Policy BE1 (criterion a) of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001.

6 In the interests of visual amenity, to accord with Policy BE1 (criterion a) of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001.

7 To ensure the long term future for all landscaped areas including the future maintenance of these areas in accordance with Policy NE12 of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001.

8 To safeguard the amenities of the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings, in the absence of submitted details to accord with Policy BE1 (criterion h) of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001.

174

9 To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem, protect the water quality, minimise the risk of pollution and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system to accord with Policy NE14 of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001 and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

10 To protect the water quality and minimise the risk of pollution to accord with Policy NE14 of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

11 To ensure satisfactory archaeological investigation and recording in accordance with Policies BE14 and BE15 of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001.

12 To ensure the protection of neighbouring residential amenity during construction to accord with Policy BE1 (criterion i) of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001.

13 In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure there is adequate facilities for waste and recycling storage to accord with Policy BE1 (criterion a) of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001.

14 In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy T5 of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001.

15 To ensure a satisfactory standard of off-road vehicle parking in accordance with Policy T5 of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001.

16 In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy T5 of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001.

17 To prevent general usage of a substandard access in accordance with Policy T5 of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001.

18&19 In the interests of ecology and biodiversity in accordance with Paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes to Applicant:-

1 Bats, nesting birds, great crested newts and certain other species are protected by law. If any such species are discovered before or during the works the works must be suspended and the local office of Natural England contacted for advice.

2 This permission does not grant approval under the Building Act 1984 and the Building Regulations 2000 (as amended) for which a separate application may be required. You are advised to contact the Building Control Section.

3 As from 6 April 2008 this Authority are charging for the discharge of conditions in accordance with revised fee regulations which came into force on that date. Application forms to discharge conditions and further information can be found on the planning portal web site www.planningportal.gov.uk.

4 All works within the limits of the Highway with regard to the access shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Southern Area Manager (0116 3052202).

Contact Officer:- Simon Atha Ext 5919

175

APPENDIX 2 – Late Item 19 August 2014

ITEM 01 14/00674/FUL Charles Church North Midlands

Introduction:-

Additional representations have been received since publication of the agenda. They are appraised below.

Consultations:-

CPRE supports the objections of the Neighbourhood Forum as this application takes no account of the efforts of the NDP to plan development in areas that residents have agreed on. In addition, this proposal would jeopardise the Neighbourhood Plan process and would greatly affect the views and vistas and character of the area.

County Councillor Ould objects to the proposal for the following reasons:- a) environmental impact of the application b) site lies outside of settlement boundary c) premature to the emerging Neighbourhood Plan d) impact upon Churchill's business.

Bloor Homes have objected to the proposal on the grounds that no decision should be made until the appeal in September is determined. In addition the draft Neighbourhood Plan proposes an alternative site to the south of Station Road which Bloor are bringing forward. A recently issued ministerial statement re-emphasises the governments commitment to Neighbourhood Planning and that appeals above 10 units are likely to be recovered by the Secretary of State. Furthermore, if this application were to be approved this would jeopardise the delivery of the mixed use scheme on the south side of Station Road and a key employment component that it contains.

Market Bosworth Society have raised additional comments stating that the site should be classed as a local heritage asset given that Captain Churchill who founded the adjacent Churchill's factory site used to land his WW2 fighter plane on the field.

The Conservation Officer has responded to this representation as follows:- a) The Churchill's factory and the field opposite (to the north of Station Road) both have some historical significance due to their historical association with the Churchill directors and the roles both they, and the factory, played in the second world war. This significance is of a local level, and therefore the factory and the field are worthy of being considered as local heritage assets (non-designated heritage assets in NPPF terms). b) The factory played a key role in the development of the jet engine during the war, so the building is clearly a historical asset. The field was the location for a landing strip utilised by Group Captain Churchill DSO DFC when visiting the factory during 1941 and 1942, so is part of this historic association and should also be considered a local heritage asset. However, confirmation of the exact location of where Captain Churchill landed his aircraft in the field would be useful to tightly define the boundaries of the asset. There appears to be traces of a landing strip visible from the latest aerial photography, which I believe was most recently used for flying by the occupants of Wharf Farm. If this landing strip was also the same as that utilised by Captain Churchill then the location may be clear. This southern section of this strip appears to be located within the western section of the application boundary.

176 c) There should be recognition of the valuable contribution the community of Market Bosworth made during the war, including the role of the Churchill factory and the two directors, with this recognition made in an appropriate manner.

A letter of objection has been received from Freeths Solicitors representing JJ Churchill Limited, the adjacent factory site stating that the development would introduce conflicting land uses and would also prevent the future expansion of the Churchill's site. The letter states that the committee report is wrong to ascribe little weight to the emerging Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan and that the emerging plan should not be considered to be premature. The letter states that the written ministerial statement published in July 2014 states that Neighbourhood Plans should be given significant weight. The letter advises that the committee report fails to acknowledge or understand the business needs of Churchill's in respect of its potential for future expansion and that the noise levels from the Churchill's factory would impact on the amenity of future occupiers of the proposed dwellings which could limit Churchill's operations in the future. Concern has been raised that no account has been taken of Churchill's as a defence contractor.

In addition two further letters of objection have been received from local residents raising concerns as listed in the committee report.

Appraisal:-

The Conservation Officer has agreed to work with the Market Bosworth Society in providing an appropriate memorial to recognise the war efforts made by Captain Churchill and particularly the contribution the factory made to the war. It is considered that the factory and site opposite that was used as a landing strip could be considered to be local heritage assets, however it is considered that as the factory made the most significant contribution to the war over the use of the landing strip, the loss of the field would not impede overall on the significance of the Churchill's site or its heritage value.

The points and objections are noted in the letter from JJ Churchill's. However for the reasons discussed in the committee report the emerging Market Bosworth Neighbourhood Plan is at a draft stage and as such the weight that should be applied to it as a material consideration at this stage is limited and as such prematurity is not considered to be a significant factor. The potential for conflicting land uses has been considered and similar to many areas of the Borough, residential land uses and commercial/industrial land uses take place side by side. Appropriate mitigation methods to reduce any potential noise impact upon future occupiers has been secured by condition and the repositioning of dwellings further back into the site would adequately deal with any future impacts. The proposed development is not considered to limit or impact upon the satisfactory operation of Churchill's either at present or in the future should the business wish to expand its operations.

The additional representations received have been noted and considered.

Recommendation:-

It is considered that the representations raise no additional issues that have not already been taken into consideration in the Committee report. It is therefore recommended that Members accept the recommendation and grant planning permission subject to conditions and the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations.

177

Item: 04

Reference: 14/01109/OUT

Ap plicant: Trustees Of E J Madders

Location: Yew Tree Farm Main Street Barton In The Beans

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of up to 11 dwellings (outline - access only)

RECOMMENDATION:- Refuse planning permission.

Introduction:-

This application is to be considered at Planning Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, as it is an application for 10 or more dwellings.

Application Proposal

Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of up to 11 dwellings. All matters are reserved except for means of access, which is for consideration with this application.

The proposal would involve the demolition of the existing agricultural/commercial buildings on the site.

The applicant has indicated that 4 units of affordable housing would be provided.

The access to the development is proposed via the existing access point from Main Street.

The Site and Surrounding Area

The site is approximately 0.42 hectares in size and is located to the south of Main Street. The majority of the site extends beyond the settlement boundary of Barton in the Beans, as defined by the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan proposals map (2011). The majority of the site is classed as being within the countryside.

The site is accessed from Main Street. The access rises steeply to the south and the site levels out beyond the rear residential gardens of properties along Main Street. Several small trees exist on site to the rear of No. 17 Main Street. The site has open low post and rail wooden fences to the east, west and southern boundaries. The site is bound by residential development to the north; however open countryside surrounds the remainder of the site to the east, south and west.

The site contains agricultural/commercial units, occupied by two businesses. The units are single storey in nature and mostly constructed from concrete blocks, metal cladding and corrugated metal roofs. In addition to this there is a single storey building on site, which is also used for business purposes, which is of brick construction with slate roof tiles.

178

Technical Documents submitted with the application

Planning Statement Building for Life Assessment Site Access Appraisal Statement of Community Consultation Bat Survey and Mitigation Statement

Relevant Planning History:-

00/00250/COU Change of part of agricultural Approved 26.05.00 building to engineering use

93/00958/4 Change of use of agricultural Approved 22.12.93 building to workshop

92/00770/4 Change of use of agricultural Approved 28.10.92 building to office

88/00428/4 Change of use from agricultural Approved building for assembly of garden fencing panels from presawn timber

179

Consultations:-

No objection has been received from:-

Leicestershire County Council (Highways) Severn Trent Water Conservation Officer HBBC Street Scene Services (Waste) Leicestershire County Council (Public Rights of Way) Environmental Health (Pollution) Leicestershire County Council (Ecology) Affordable Housing & Strategy Officer.

A site notice and a press notice were displayed. In addition neighbours immediately adjoining the site were consulted.

Shakerstone Parish Council has objected to the application as it does not comply with the local development plan and is outside of the village boundary.

One letter of objection was received from a local resident outlining the following issues:- a) loss of employment b) lack of community facilities c) loss of existing trees on site d) a footpath runs through the site e) concern with strategic housing policy f) the scale of the dwellings would be inappropriate g) inadequate car parking provision h) no mains gas is the village i) affordable housing unlikely to be delivered j) the strategic housing proposals for Barton identify other sites for future housing k) sewage and drainage inadequate for the site l) bats are known around the site.

One letter of objection has been received from a company which operates from the premises. Summary of comments:- a) the company has been operating from the premises for the past 18 years b) a great deal of time has been spent adapting the premises to meet the needs of the business c) would be difficult to find suitable alternative premises in the local area and moving would be costly d) would like to grow and employ more people but the proposal would be detrimental to the development of the business.

Policy:-

National Policy Guidance

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) 2014

180

Local Plan 2006-2026: Core Strategy 2009

Policy 13: Rural Hamlets Policy 15: Affordable Housing Policy 16: Housing Density, Mix and Design Policy 19: Green Space and Play Provision Policy 24: Sustainable Design and Technology

Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan 2001

Policy RES5: Residential Proposals on Unallocated Sites Policy IMP1: Contributions towards the Provision of Infrastructure and Facilities Policy REC2: New Residential Development - Outdoor Open Space Provision for Formal Recreation Policy REC3: New Residential Development - Outdoor Play Space for Children Policy NE5: Development within the Countryside Policy T5: Highway Design and Vehicle Parking Standards

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents

New Residential Development (SPG) Play and Open Space (SPD) Affordable Housing (SPD)

Other Material Policy Guidance

Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Pre- Submission) - February 2014

Appraisal:-

The main considerations in the determination of this application are:-

• Principle of development • Impact upon the character and appearance of the countryside • Highway considerations • Impact on public footpath • Affordable housing • Ecology • Developer contributions

Principle of Development

Policy 13 of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Core Strategy (2009) identifies Barton in the Beans as a Rural Hamlet and due to its limited services, development is limited to infill housing development, local choice schemes and conversion of agricultural buildings to employment uses. The majority of the application site is identified as being outside the settlement boundary in the adopted Local Plan (2001) and therefore cannot be classed as

181 infill development. The application therefore does not meet any of the three criteria of Policy 13 of the Core Strategy (2009).

As the majority of the site is located outside the settlement boundary it is therefore defined as being within the countryside. Saved Policy NE5 of the Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan (2001) protects the countryside for its own sake and restricts new development unless the development is either:- a) important to the local economy and cannot be provided within or adjacent to an existing settlement; or b) for the change of use, re use or extension of existing buildings, particularly those of historic value; or c) for sport or recreational purposes.

The proposed development does not meet the identified criteria above and is therefore contrary to Policy NE5 of the Local Plan (2001).

Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that in the absence of a five year supply of housing land, policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date. As of 1 October 2014 the council has a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. Therefore it is considered that the housing supply policies of the development plan are up to date.

Notwithstanding the five year supply position, Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. This means:-

Economic

The proposal would result in the loss of a rural employment site, currently serving two businesses. It is acknowledged that this site is classed as brownfield land, due to the existing use and that the effective re-use of previously developed land is encouraged by the NPPF, however the NPPF also supports the rural economy of which the existing employment use contributes towards.

182

Social

Barton in the Beans has very limited facilities and this development does not propose any additional community facilities or open space. Other than the supply of housing the proposal is not considered to contribute towards the social strand of sustainability.

Environmental

Currently there are employment buildings on site, which are converted agricultural buildings constructed mainly from concrete blocks and metal sheeting. Due to their simple design and single storey nature the impact of the development upon the character of the countryside is limited. The proposed scheme would introduce dwellings of a residential character in a sensitive location, on the open edge of the settlement which would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the surrounding rural environment (this is discussed in further detail in the section below).

Whilst this proposal would bring forward additional housing to the borough, the site is within an unsustainable hamlet due to its rural location and limited facilities or services. Whilst the site is brownfield previously developed land, due to an existing business use on site the majority of it is within the countryside and is not a suitable location for new residential development. The impact of the development upon the character of the countryside and of the hamlet of Barton in the Beans, loss of employment and its location result in an unsustainable proposal. The adverse impacts of this proposal outweigh the benefits and therefore the principle of development on this site is unacceptable.

The proposal is therefore considered to be unsustainable and is contrary to Policy NE5 of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan (2001), Policy 13 of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Core Strategy (2009) and the overarching intentions of the NPPF in achieving sustainable development.

Impact Upon the Character and Appearance of the Countryside

Whilst the buildings currently on site do not hold any special merit in architectural terms, the simple design of the buildings and the materials used which are agricultural in nature result in a limited impact upon the wider area and open countryside to the south. The buildings were originally agricultural in use and are similar to other agricultural buildings to the east.

The design criteria i-iv within saved Policy NE5 of the Local Plan remain and are relevant to development within the countryside. The Policy states that development will only be permitted where the following criteria are met:- a) it does not have an adverse effect on the appearance or character of the landscape b) it is in keeping with the scale and character of existing buildings and the general surroundings c) where necessary it is effectively screened by landscaping or other methods d) the proposed development will not generate traffic likely to exceed the capacity of the highway network or impair road safety.

Whilst this application is at the outline stage with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale held for reserved matters stage the overall impact of new residential development on this site must be assessed. The proposal would introduce built form at two storeys in scale on the edge of the settlement. This more urban form of development would encroach into the countryside and would change the linear character of Barton in the Beans. It is therefore considered that the impact of the proposed residential development in this location would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the countryside and the linear

183 character and settlement pattern of Barton in the Beans. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved Policy NE5 of the Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan (2001) and would result in harm to the open countryside which would not accord with the environmental dimension of sustainability as set out in the NPPF.

Highway Considerations

The site is currently served by an existing access from Main Street.

A site access appraisal has been undertaken for the site and submitted with the application. This appraisal investigates an appropriate site access which would accommodate 40 dwellings. The document discusses two phases for the site; phase 1 for 10-12 dwellings (this application) and phase two, including land to both the east and west of this site, which would provide additional dwellings to make a total of 40 dwellings. The appraisal suggests the existing access is suitable to serve a development of up to 40 dwellings, however also suggests 3 further options for an access to the site.

No objection has been raised by Leicestershire County Council (Highways) in regard to the location of the proposed access and as such it is not considered that the access would give rise to a highway safety issue. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with saved Policy T5 of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan.

Impact on Public Right of Way

Two public footpaths run across the site. Footpath S89 runs north - south across the site and footpath S87 runs from the south western edge of the corner to the south of the site. The indicative plan submitted with this proposal indicates that the public footpath would be diverted. This issue would need resolving with Leicestershire County Council (Rights of Way) at the reserved matters stage; however it is likely that a scheme could be achieved through diverting the existing public rights of way and it is not considered that this would result in the loss or use of those public rights of way.

Affordable Housing

The applicant has indicated on a submitted heads of terms that the affordable housing contribution of the scheme will be four units; however the application form has indicated two affordable homes. The applicant has clarified that it is the intention to provide 4 affordable homes.

As the proposal is for 11 dwellings, Policy 15 of the adopted Core Strategy (2009) requires 40% affordable housing provision to be provided within rural areas. The policy also defines the tenure split for all sites which is 75% social rented and 25% intermediate tenure.

There are currently the following numbers of applicants on the Council's Housing Register for Barton in the Beans:-

1 bed property: 133 2 bed properties: 131 3 bed properties: 39 4 or more bed properties: 0 Total: 303

There is no local housing needs survey relevant to this settlement to give up to date information on need for people with a local connection. The settlement is one of 5 settlements which belong to the parish of Shackerstone, which last had a local Housing

184

Needs Survey carried out in 2007. There are 6 units of social rented housing in the village, 5 of which belong to Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council. These units consist of:-

5 x two bedroomed bungalows 1 x three bedroomed house

It is therefore requested that the affordable housing provision on the site be compromised of:- 3 x two bedroomed 4 person family houses and 2 x three bedroomed 5 person family houses.

The figure of five affordable homes is derived from rounding up the 40% figure calculated which would be 4.4 affordable homes. This proposal is relatively small, 11 dwellings, and as it is brownfield, previously developed land the viability of the site may be difficult if five affordable homes were required from this development. Therefore, in this instance it is considered the provision of four affordable homes on this site is acceptable and in accordance with Policy 15 of the adopted Core Strategy (2009) and Affordable Housing SPD.

Whilst this development would provide affordable housing for the area and borough this benefit would not outweigh the harm the development would cause to the rural character of the area and the resultant loss of rural employment.

Ecology

A small roost of bats has been found in one of the buildings on site to be demolished. Mitigation measures are outlined in the submitted Protected Species Survey to overcome this issue. No objections have been received form Leicestershire County Council (Ecology), however this is subject to conditions covering mitigation for impact on bats.

Developer Contributions

Due to the scale of the proposal developer contributions are required to mitigate the impact of the proposed development upon existing community services and facilities.

The general approach to developer contributions must be considered alongside the requirements contained within the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (CIL). The regulations confirm that where developer contributions are requested they need to be necessary, directly related and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development proposed.

Play and Open Space

No existing play or open space provision exists within Barton in the Beans and therefore contributions cannot be sought for this proposal.

Civic Amenity

Leicestershire County Council has reviewed the proposed development and consider there would be an impact on the delivery of Civic Amenity waste facilities within the local area because of a development of this scale, type and size. As such a developer contribution is requested of £545.It is estimated that there will be an additional 3 tonnes of waste generated by the development of 11 dwellings and given that the total waste collected is approximately 8,000 tonnes per annum at this civic amenity site, it is difficult to see that a contribution is necessary or fairly related to this development as the impact from this development would be minimal.

185

Libraries

Leicestershire County Council consider the proposed development is of a scale and size which would have an impact on the delivery of library facilities within the local area. The proposed development on Main St, Barton in the Beans is within 3.2 km of Market Bosworth Library on Station Road, being the nearest local library facility which would serve the development site. The library facilities contribution request is £330. Leicestershire County Council consider that the proposed development will impact on local library services in respect of additional pressures on the availability of local library facilities. The contribution is sought for materials, such as books, audio books, newspapers and periodicals for loan and reference use to account for additional use from the proposed development.

Market Bosworth Library has an active borrower base of 727 people. However Market Bosworth Library attracts usage from a much wider catchment of 4774 through additional borrowers who live outside the settlement area but come into Market Bosworth for work, shopping or leisure reasons. Active users of Market Bosworth Library currently borrow on average 34 items a year. Leicestershire County Council consider that the proposed development is likely to generate an additional 16 plus users and would require an additional 38 items of lending stock plus reference, audio visual and homework support material to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development on the local library service. It is considered that the library request has not demonstrated whether the contribution is necessary and how increasing lending stock would mitigate the impact of the development on the library facility and nor is such a small population increase arising out of the development likely to directly correlate to an impact in planning terms.

Education

No developer contributions have been requested by Leicestershire County Council in regard to education as the development would not create a defect of spaces to surrounding catchment schools.

With the exception of affordable housing no other contribution requests that are considered to be CIL compliant are required to be secured and given the principle of development is considered to be unacceptable a Section 106 agreement has therefore not been progressed.

Conclusion

The principle of development in this location is considered to be unacceptable, given its unsustainable location, and unsustainable impact on the character of the countryside and a loss of rural employment premises. It is therefore concluded that the proposal would not result in a form of sustainable development and is contrary to Policy 13 of the adopted Core Strategy (2009) and saved Polices NE5 and BE1 of the adopted Local Plan (2001).

It is considered that the adverse impacts of the proposal outweigh the benefits it would provide and therefore is unsustainable and in conflict with the overarching intentions of the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION:- Refuse planning permission.

Summary of Reasons for Recommendation and Relevant Development Plan Policies :

In dealing with the application, through ongoing dialogue and the proper consideration of the proposal in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the local planning authority have attempted to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with

186 the planning application, however in this instance the proposal is considered to be in conflict with the development plan and the application has been refused.

Reasons:-

1 The proposed development is unsustainable by virtue of its location outside of the settlement boundary, its impact upon the rural character of the area and the resultant loss of rural employment. The adverse impacts of the proposal are considered to outweigh the benefits it would provide and is therefore considered to be an unsustainable development. The proposal is contrary to Policy 13 of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Core Strategy (2009), Saved Policies NE5 and BE1 of the Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan (2001) and the overarching intentions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Contact Officer:- Helen Wilson Ext 5691

187

Item: 05

Reference: 14/01199/OUT

Applicant: Mr Trevor Allcoat

Location: Land Rear Of Woodbeech Kennels 9 Woodgate Road Burbage

Proposal: Erection of dwelling (outline - access only)

RECOMMENDATION:- Grant subject to conditions.

Introduction:-

This application is to be considered at Planning Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, as objections have been received from more than five addresses.

Application Proposal

This application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of a new dwelling on land to the rear of a detached bungalow, 9 Woodgate Road, Burbage. Approval of access is the only matter for consideration at this stage with all other matters reserved. Access is proposed from Burbage Road along Woodgate Road (a private road surfaced in loose stones) and a secondary (gated) private drive surfaced in tarmacadam currently serving Nos. 11 and 15 Woodgate Road. The proposal would require the removal of a section of hedgerow along the north east boundary to gain access to the plot.

Amended plans have been submitted during the course of the application to relocate the proposed access to the position of the existing gate into the site and to amend the indicative layout, floor plans and street scene elevations to demonstrate how a new dwelling within the site could better relate to surrounding development.

The Site and Surrounding Area

The site is located within the settlement boundary of Burbage, measures approximately 580 square metres (excluding the access) and is rectangular in shape being approximately 18.2 metres wide and 32 metres deep. It is enclosed by a mix of brick wall, close boarded timber fencing panels of at least 1.8 metres in height and tall hedgerows and used as an allotment area in connection with No. 9 which lies to the south east of the site. No 11 Woodgate Road lies to the north west, the rear garden of No. 7 Woodgate Road lies to the south west. A private drive lies to the north east along the far side of which there is a row of trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Beyond these there is countryside forming part of the Hinckley/Barwell/Earl Shilton/Burbage Green Wedge and containing a variety of wildlife habitats. There is a public footpath along Woodgate Road that runs through to the countryside, designated nature areas and Burbage Common and Woods beyond.

Technical Documents submitted with the Application

None relevant.

188

Relevant Planning History:-

There are a number of outline and reserved matters applications relating to the area now occupied by 11 and 15 Woodgate Road:-

03/01231/REM Erection of one dwelling Approved 10.12.03

03/00398/REM Erection of one dwelling and Approved 08.07.03 garage

02/01319/OUT Erection of two detached Approved 09.01.03 houses without compliance with Conditions 4 and 5 of Planning Permission Ref 01/0399/OUT

01/00399/OUT Erection of two detached Approved 19.07.01 houses and formation of access

Consultations:-

No objection has been received from:-

Leicestershire County Council (Public Rights of Way) Environmental Health (Land Drainage).

189

Leicestershire County Council (Highways) has no objection but refers to standing advice in respect of parking provision and surfacing of the access.

No objection subject to conditions has been received from:-

Environment Agency Environmental Health (Pollution) Street Scene Services (Waste).

Burbage Parish Council object to the application on the following (summarised) grounds:- a) unsatisfactory relationship to neighbouring properties, detrimental to residential amenity due to overbearing impact, loss of privacy from overlooking, vehicular activity, noise and disturbance contrary to Policy BE1 (i) and SPG on New Residential Development b) overdevelopment of the site (including factors of scale and mass) c) backland development - an incongruous, inappropriate and uncomplimentary form of development that fails to respect the character of the locality and its setting contrary to Policy BE1 (a) and paragraphs 53 and 64 of the NPPF, Burbage Village Design Statement GN1 (plot size), GN2 2.6 d) lack of adequate space between buildings and inadequate private amenity space e) detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety by reason of the width, loose stone surfacing and gradient of the access and its use for access to Burbage Common and Woods and Woodgate NatureSpot contrary to Burbage Village Design statement GN3 3.5 - 3.7.

Site notice posted and neighbours notified, objections have been received from 22 different addresses. A summary of the issues/concerns raised is as follows:- a) outside development boundary/intrusion into open countryside b) no additional housing needed in Burbage - exceeded Core Strategy housing requirements c) backland siting, incongruous and uncomplimentary form of development contrary to established linear character of the area d) overdevelopment of site and plot insufficient in size for a house of similar standard to adjacent properties e) overbearing and detrimental to privacy and amenity from overlooking f) adverse impact on highway safety from additional traffic at junction with Burbage Road lacking appropriate width and visibility (obstructed by high hedges either side) and blocking of pavement g) adverse impact on pedestrian safety including schoolchildren along a busy, steep, unadopted loose stone road/public footpath with no pavements h) land ownership issues in respect of access drive and removal of hedgerow i) the site is within a former landfill area j) removal of hedgerow k) harmful landscape impact/borders the green edge and designated nature area l) will set a precedent for additional development m) premature to Burbage Neighbourhood Plan n) inaccuracies on submitted plans.

No response has been received from:-

Ramblers Association Arboricultural Officer.

190

Policy:-

National Policy Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) 2014 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010

Local Plan 2006-2026: Core Strategy 2009

Policy 4: Development in Burbage Policy 24: Sustainable Design and Technology

Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001

The site is located within the settlement boundary of Burbage as defined in the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan.

Policy BE1: Design and Siting of Development Policy RES5: Residential Proposals on Unallocated Sites Policy NE14: Protection of Surface Waters and Ground Water Quality Policy T5: Highway Design & Vehicle Parking Standards Policy IMP1: Contributions Towards the Provision of Infrastructure & Facilities Policy REC3: New Residential Development - Outdoor Play Space for Children

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents

New Residential Development (SPG) Burbage Village Design Statement (BVDS) Play and Open Space (SPD) Sustainable Design (SPD)

Appraisal:-

The main considerations in determination of this application are:-

• the principle of development • relationship to the character of the surrounding area • access and highway and pedestrian safety • the amenities of neighbouring properties • developer contributions • other issues

Principle of Development

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This is set out within paragraphs 49 and 14 of the NPPF. For decision taking this means:

• approving development proposals which accord with the development plan without delay, and • where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless;

191

− any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, or − specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.

Policy RES5 of the adopted Local Plan supports housing development on unallocated sites within the boundaries of urban areas.

An objection has been received that the site is outside the development boundary and would be an intrusion into the open countryside. However, the application site is located within the settlement boundary of Burbage as defined on the Proposals Map of the adopted Local Plan where residential development is generally acceptable in principle and in a sustainable urban location within a reasonable distance of services and facilities.

Policy 4 of the adopted Core Strategy supports the allocation of land for a minimum of 295 new dwellings. Objections have been received that the minimum number of new dwellings for Burbage identified in the adopted Core Strategy has been exceeded and there is no need for additional new dwellings. Notwithstanding that the authority is currently able to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land and that the minimum allocation for Burbage has been exceeded, the allocation is a minimum figure and the proposal is for one new dwelling and therefore would not have any material effect on the spatial vision for the settlement. As well as contributing, albeit on a small scale, to the social role of sustainable development by providing an additional dwelling, the proposal would contribute to the economic role through the construction/development of the site. Notwithstanding that there is a line of trees on the opposite side of the access drive that are protected by a Tree Preservation Order and sites of some ecological importance beyond them further to the north east, these are not within or immediately adjacent to the site and would therefore be unaffected by the development. The site is/has been used as an allotment and therefore the proposal would not result in any significant adverse impacts on the environment. The proposal is therefore considered to be a sustainable development in accordance with the overarching principles of the NPPF and Policy RES5 of the adopted Local Plan that supports residential development within settlement boundaries. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle subject to all other planning matters being appropriately addressed.

Notwithstanding that the site may be considered to be in a sustainable urban location, the NPPF at paragraph 53 suggests that local authorities should consider setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area. As such the proposed development of this former residential garden/allotment should be considered against local policies to determine if it would harm the local area.

Relationship to the Character and Appearance of the Area

In addition to paragraph 53 above, the NPPF in paragraph 58 seeks to ensure that development responds to local character and reflects the identity of local surroundings. Paragraph 60 states that planning decisions should not impose architectural styles or unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles but that it is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. Paragraph 64 states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to improve the character of the area and the way it functions. Policy BE1 (criterion a) of the adopted Local Plan seeks to ensure that the development complements or enhances the character of the surrounding area with regard to scale, layout, density, mass, design, materials and architectural features with the intention of preventing development that is out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area. The Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on New Residential Development aims to ensure that new development has regard to the character of the surrounding area and is well integrated into its surroundings.

192

These policies are considered to have a high degree of conformity with the NPPF and can therefore be given weight in the determination of the application.

Objections have been received that the proposal would result in an incongruous, inappropriate and non-complementary back-land development that fails to respect the pattern of development and character of the locality and its setting. There are also objections that the plot size is insufficient when compared with surrounding dwellings and would result in overdevelopment of the site with insufficient space between buildings and inadequate private amenity space.

Notwithstanding that the application site is located to the rear of 9 Woodgate Road, it is adjacent to 11 Woodgate Road and has frontage onto the shared access drive serving Nos. 11 and 15 Woodgate Road over which the applicant has a right of way up to the existing gate into the site. By virtue of this frontage it is considered that the scheme should not be considered to be back-land development. In addition, the construction of a dwelling in accordance with the amended indicative layout and indicative scale parameters submitted would continue the established building line along the private driveway.

There are a variety of plot sizes and shapes within the surrounding area and notwithstanding that the application plot is smaller in total area, it is not significantly dissimilar in width to that of 15 Woodgate Road. At approximately 580 square metres the development of the site for one dwelling would achieve a density of less than 20 dwellings per hectare which is low but considered to be reasonable for this edge of settlement plot and given the low density character of the surrounding area. It is considered that by virtue of the size of the plot adequate separation distances could be achieved to neighbouring properties and adequate parking and private amenity areas provided within the site. Therefore, subject to a satisfactory layout which remains a reserved matter, the scheme would not result in overdevelopment of the plot.

Notwithstanding the objections received which have been carefully considered, the proposed scheme for one new dwelling is not considered to result in any significant harm to the established pattern of development or varied character of the surrounding area and would be well integrated into its surroundings. By virtue of its separation from the protected trees and countryside beyond by the private driveway, the proposal would not have any adverse impact on the character or visual appearance of the landscape/Green Wedge to the north east of the site. The scheme is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy BE1 (criterion a) of the adopted Local Plan, the SPG on New Residential Development and Burbage Village Design Statement (GN1 and GN2 2.6) and is therefore acceptable in respect of paragraph 53 of the NPPF.

Access, Highway and Pedestrian Safety

Policy BE1 (criterion g) seeks to ensure that there is adequate highway visibility for road users and adequate provision of off-street parking and manoeuvring facilities. Policy T5 applies highway design and vehicle parking standards.

Objections have been received that the access lacks adequate width and visibility at its junction with Burbage Road for additional traffic and that vehicles waiting to enter the highway block the pavement. Objections have also been received that the proposal would be detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety by reason of the width, loose stone surfacing, lack of defined pavements and steep gradient of the private access and its use by pedestrians including schoolchildren as a public right of way for access to Burbage Common and Woods and Woodgate Nature Spot.

193

Woodgate Road is a private un-adopted road that has adequate visibility at the junction with Burbage Road and adequate width (of approximately 5.5 metres at its minimum) to enable two vehicles to pass. Notwithstanding the steeper gradient close to the junction with Burbage Road, the nature of its loose surface construction and its use by pedestrians, the level of additional traffic generated by one new dwelling is not considered to be on a scale likely to result in any significant adverse impact on the safety of pedestrians.

Leicestershire County Council (Highways) consider that there is adequate width and visibility at the junction to cater for the additional traffic generated by one new dwelling and raise no objections on highway safety grounds. Temporary blocking of the pavement is no different to many other situations relating to shared or individual private driveways accessing main roads. Standing advice is referred to for adequate parking to be provided within the plot which (given the size of the plot), could be achieved by a satisfactory layout, and for consideration to be given for hard bound surfacing of the access for the first 5 metres behind the highway boundary at its junction with Burbage Road. A similar condition and a condition requiring alterations to the gradient was recommended by the Highway Authority and imposed on an outline planning permission in respect of the two dwellings now known as 11 and 15 Woodgate Road (reference 01/00399/OUT). However, these conditions were removed by a subsequent outline planning permission for these dwellings (reference 02/01319/OUT) as it was acknowledged by the Highway Authority that the applicant has no control over that land at the junction with Burbage Road and cannot reasonably implement/adhere to such conditions. The Highway Authority also conceded that the construction and geometry of the access was not sufficiently poor to warrant refusal of the development and that they were not in a position to demonstrate that the development if permitted without the conditions would have a negative impact in highway safety terms. Therefore, as the driveway is not in the ownership of the applicant a condition to surface the access in hard bound materials cannot reasonably be imposed and the proposal would not warrant a refusal of planning permission on highway safety grounds. Leicestershire County Council (Highways) have subsequently withdrawn their comment in respect of a requirement for hard bound surfacing at the access junction.

Therefore, notwithstanding the objections received which have been carefully considered, the proposal for one new dwelling would not result in any demonstrable adverse impact on highway or pedestrian safety and is therefore in accordance with Policies BE1 (criterion g) and T5 of the adopted Local Plan.

Relationship to the Amenities of Neighbouring Properties

The NPPF seeks to ensure a high quality of design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Policy BE1 (criterion (i) of the adopted Local Plan and SPG on new Residential Development require that development does not adversely affect the amenities or privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Objections have been received that the proposal would result in an unsatisfactory relationship to neighbouring properties and would be detrimental to residential amenity due to overbearing impact, loss of privacy from overlooking, vehicular activity, noise and disturbance.

9 Woodgate Road is located to the south east of the site. It is a detached bungalow with a conservatory attached to the rear elevation that faces the application site. The main rear elevation is set in from the boundary by approximately 12 metres and the rear elevation of the conservatory by approximately 7.5metres. The rear garden is enclosed by 1.8 metres high close boarded timber fencing.

194

11 Woodgate Road is located to the north west of the site on a slightly lower ground level. It is a detached two storey dwelling with first floor accommodation within the roof space. It is set in 1 metre from the site boundary which is defined by a brick pillar wall and close boarded timber fence of approximately 1.8 metres in height. The only windows in the side elevation facing the application site are two roof lights that serve bedrooms that have principal windows to the front and rear elevations.

7 Woodgate Road is a detached two storey dwelling located approximately 17 metres from the south corner of the application site. The boundary of the site where it abuts the rear garden of No 7 is defined by a hedgerow of approximately 3 metres in height.

Notwithstanding the objections received which have been carefully considered, from the submitted indicative details and site visit the plot is considered to be large enough and capable of accommodating a new detached dwelling without resulting in any adverse overbearing relationship or loss of privacy or amenity from overlooking to neighbouring properties or result in any undue noise or disturbance from occupation of the dwelling. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy BE1 (criterion i) of the adopted Local Plan, the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance on New Residential Development and the principles of the NPPF in this respect.

Developer Contributions

Policies IMP1 and REC3 of the adopted Local Plan and the Play and Open Space SPD require new residential development to contribute towards the provision and maintenance of public play and open space facilities for children. The request for any developer must be considered alongside the guidance contained within the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (CIL). The CIL Regulations confirm that where developer contributions are requested they need to be necessary, directly related and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development proposed. However, on 28th November 2014 the Secretary of State announced revisions to s.106 and CIL contributions and the NPPG. Following the announcement of the Secretary of State, the Council's ability to request affordable housing and other tariff based contributions (which includes play and open space provision) on smaller sites has been removed. Contributions can not now be sought on developments less than 10 dwellings and therefore no contribution has been pursued in this case.

Other Issues

An objection has been received in respect of land ownership issues and the removal of a section of hedgerow. Land ownership/right of way is a civil matter and the applicant has confirmed a right of access along the private driveway to the existing gateway into the site. The hedgerow has been planted across the right of access and does not provide a habitat of any particular significance therefore its removal is not unacceptable.

Environmental Health (Pollution) have no objection to the scheme subject to a condition requiring the investigation of potential landfill gas and satisfactory mitigation measures where necessary to be incorporated into the construction of the dwelling. The site is within a former landfill area and therefore the condition is reasonable and necessary to protect the future occupiers of the site.

The Environment Agency have no objection to the scheme subject to the use of a private packaged sewage treatment plant for the disposal of foul drainage from the site in the absence of a connection to the mains sewer system and a condition in respect of remediation of any potential land contamination found during the development of the site.

195

The site is within a former landfill area and therefore these conditions are reasonable and necessary to protect the environment and ground water from potential pollution.

Street Scene Services (Waste) recommend a condition requiring a scheme for the provision of a waste and recycling collection point for the dwelling. Notwithstanding that Woodgate Road is not a public highway, it is understood that collection is made along this private road and that the existing properties 11 and 15 Woodgate Road present bins at the end of Woodgate Road. As there is enough space for additional bins from the proposed dwelling to be presented for collection at this point a condition is not considered to be necessary in this case.

Objections on the grounds of precedent should be given only limited weight as each application must be considered on its own planning merits.

Objections have been received that the proposal is premature to the emerging Burbage Neighbourhood Plan however this document is not at a stage where any weight can be given.

Conclusion

Paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The application site is in a sustainable location within the settlement boundary of Burbage where residential development is acceptable in principle. By virtue of the plot size and its frontage onto the private access drive to the north east it is considered that development of the site for one detached dwelling would not cause any significant harm to the established pattern of development or varied character of the surrounding area and would not have any adverse impact on the landscape or Green Wedge to the north east. It is considered that the proposed access has adequate width and visibility and the addition of one new dwelling would not generate traffic on a scale that would result in any adverse impacts on highway or pedestrian safety. The plot is of sufficient size to enable development for one new dwelling without resulting in any adverse relationship to the privacy or amenity of any neighbouring properties.

Therefore, the proposal is not considered to result in any significant or demonstrable adverse impacts that would weigh against the presumption in favour of sustainable housing development supported in paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF. As a result the scheme is considered to be in accordance with Policy 4 of the adopted Core Strategy, Policies BE1 (criteria a, c, g and i), RES5, NE14 and T5 of the adopted Local Plan, the Council's SPG on New Residential Development, guidance within the Burbage Village Design Statement and the overarching principles of the NPPF. The application is therefore recommended for outline approval for access only subject to a number of conditions.

RECOMMENDATION:- Grant subject to conditions.

Summary of Reasons for Recommendation and Relevant Development Plan Policies :

Having regard to the pattern of existing development in the area, representations received and relevant provisions of the development plan, as summarised below according to their degree of consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework, it is considered that subject to compliance with the conditions attached to this permission, the proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan as it is a sustainable development within the settlement boundary of Burbage and by virtue of the size and position of the plot would not have any significant adverse impacts on the character or

196 appearance of the surrounding area and would not give rise to any adverse relationship to the amenities of the occupiers of any neighbouring properties or highway or pedestrian safety, significant trees or wildlife habitat.

Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan (2001):- Policies BE1 (criteria a, c, g and i), RES5, NE14 and T5.

Local Plan 2006 - 2026: Core Strategy:- Policy 4.

In dealing with the application, through ongoing negotiation and the receipt of amended plans, the local planning authority have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application.

Conditions:-

1 Application for the approval of reserved matters shall be made within three years from the date of this permission and the development shall be begun not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

2 Approval of the following details (hereinafter called "reserved matters") shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any development is commenced:

a) The layout of the site including the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces are provided and the relationship of these buildings and spaces outside the development. b) The scale of each building proposed in relation to its surroundings. c) The appearance of the development including the aspects of a building or place that determine the visual impression it makes. d) The landscaping of the site including treatment of private and public space to enhance or protect the site's amenity through hard and soft measures.

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

3 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the submitted application details, as follows:- Site Location Plan at 1:1250 scale received by the local planning authority on 5 January 2015 and Access/Block Plan Drawing Nos. 4376/2B & 4376/3B received by the local planning authority on 6 February 2015.

4 No development shall commence on site until such time as the existing and proposed ground levels of the site, and proposed finished floor levels have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall then be implemented in accordance with approved proposed ground levels and finished floor levels.

5 Before any development commences, representative samples of the types and colours of materials to be used on the external elevations of the proposed dwellings shall be deposited with and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with those approved materials.

6 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the monitoring of landfill gas on the site has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority which shall include details of how any landfill gas shall

197

be dealt with. The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and any remediation works so approved shall be carried out prior to the site first being occupied.

7 The method of foul drainage from the site shall be a Klargester BioDisc private packaged sewage treatment plant in accordance with the details submitted to the local planning authority on 3 February 2015. The sewage treatment plant shall be installed and fully operational prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted and shall be so maintained at all times thereafter.

8 If during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site, no further development shall be carried out until a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved remediation strategy shall be implemented prior to the site first being occupied.

9 Before first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, car parking shall be provided, hard surfaced and made available for use to serve that dwelling on the basis of 2 spaces for a dwelling with up to three bedrooms and 3 spaces for a dwelling with four or more bedrooms. The parking spaces so provided shall thereafter be permanently retained and so maintained at all times.

Reasons:-

1 To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2 This is a planning permission in outline only and the information required is necessary for the consideration of the ultimate detailed proposal in accordance with the requirements of Part 2 (5) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.

3 For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

4 To ensure that the development has a satisfactory appearance and in the interests of visual amenity to accord with Policy BE1 (criterion a) of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan.

5 To ensure that the development has a satisfactory external appearance to accord with Policy BE1 (criterion a) of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan.

6 To protect the future occupiers of the site to accord with Policy BE1 (criterion c) of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

7 To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of foul drainage and to minimise the risk of pollution to accord with Policy NE14 of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

8 To ensure the protection of the underlying Secondary A aquifer to accord with Policy NE14 of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

9 To ensure that adequate off-street parking provision is made to reduce the possibilities of the proposed development leading to on-street parking problems in the area in the interests of highway safety to accord with Policy T5 of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

198

Notes to Applicant:-

4 All works within the limits of the Highway with regard to the access shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Southern Area Manager (0116 3052202).

5 The suitability of the ground strata for soakaway drainage should be ascertained by means of the test described in BRE Digest 365, and the results approved by the Building Control Surveyor before development is commenced. The soakaway must be constructed either as a brick or concrete-lined perforated chamber with access for maintenance or, alternatively, assembled from units of one of the more recently developed, modular water storage/soakaway cell systems, incorporating silt traps. Design and construction of all types of soakaway will be subject to the approval of the Building Control Surveyor.

6 The access drive, parking and turning area, paths and patios should be constructed in a permeable paving system, with or without attenuation storage, depending on ground strata permeability. On low-permeability sites surface water dispersal may be augmented by piped land drains, installed in the foundations of the paving, discharging to an approved outlet (See Environment Agency guidance on the permeable surfacing of front gardens).

7 The applicant is reminded that the collection point for refuse and recycling is generally from the public highway and satisfactory arrangements will have to be made by the future occupiers of the site to present the relevant containers in a suitable position on collection days.

8 The applicant should ensure that the requirements of Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) with regards to the small discharge from the packaged treatment plant are adhered to. See https://www.gov.uk/using-a-septic-tank-or-sewage- treatment-plant-at-a-home-or-business.

Contact Officer:- Richard Wright Ext 5894

199

Item: 06

Reference: 14/00780/FUL

Applicant: Mr R & A Dhir

Location: Odstone Hill House Newton Lane Odstone

Proposal: Conversion of existing outbuilding to form one new dwelling.

RECOMMENDATION:- Grant subject to conditions.

Introduction:-

This application is to be considered at Planning Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, as the proposed floor space is greater than 500 square metres.

The application should be read in conjunction with application ref: 14/00827/LBC which seeks listed building consent for the proposed scheme.

Application Proposal

The application seeks full planning permission to convert existing agricultural buildings at Odstone Hill House into one residential dwelling.

The outbuildings comprise of a grade II listed two storey barn; grade II listed two storey stables and a curtilage listed single storey barn: all which are adjoined forming a U-shaped footprint. The scheme proposes to convert the outbuilding into an eight bedroomed dwelling. The form of the existing barns and stables would be retained; however a range of external and internal alterations are proposed.

Alterations proposed to the listed single storey barn would include: demolition of the existing single storey lean-to/store extension northeast of the barn; insertion of a first floor; insertion of two roof lights and a window to the southern elevation and the insertion of full height glazed doors to the threshing openings in the northern and southern elevations.

Alterations proposed to the stables would include: demolition of the single storey lean-to extension and insertion of seven roof lights on the western courtyard elevation; enlargement of an existing window opening on the eastern elevation, and reinstatement and glazing of an original door on the eastern elevation.

Alterations proposed to the single storey barn, would include four new windows and a door in the western elevation. Demolition and re-build of a A small section of brickwork, and the insertion of six roof lights in the eastern elevation.

The scheme would also reinstate all existing bricked up openings in the barn and replace the asbestos roof with slate.

During the course of the application amended plans, amending elevation details have been received and re-consulted upon.

200

The Site and Surrounding Area

The outbuildings are sited within a redundant farmyard. The site is bounded by un- maintained grass meadows to the north, east and west. Odstone Hill Farmhouse, a grade II listed building, the host dwelling sited to the south of the site. This comprises of a three storey building with a single storey, single-bay pavillion with hipped roof set back on each side. The outbuilding and farmhouse are arranged around a central concrete courtyard.

The site is accessed by a 650 meter single track off Newton Lane.

The outbuildings form a complex of pitched roofed, red brick buildings which incorporate architectural detailing including header and cill detail, brick detailing, brick dental course eaves detailing and brick vents.

The original buildings date back to the late 18th century.

The site is relatively isolated with no other properties within the immediate vicinity. The nearest dwellings are approximately 660 meters from the site.

Technical Documents submitted with the Application

Design and Access Statement Planning Statement Heritage Assessment Engineering Calculations Structural Engineers Report Timber Condition Survey Appraisal of Interventions Archive Research Mitigation Strategy for Replacement Bat Roost Habitat Bat Survey Tree Survey

Relevant Planning History:-

14/00827/LBC Conversion of existing outbuilding Pending consideration to form one new dwelling

99/01096/FUL Conversion of agricultural building Approved 19.05.00 into one dwelling

99/00656/LBC Alterations to dwelling Listed 10.09.99

201

Consultations:-

No objections have been received from:-

English Heritage Severn Trent Water Limited Leicestershire County Council (Highways) (Standing Advice) Leicestershire County Council (Drainage).

No objections subject to conditions have been received from:-

Leicestershire County Council (Ecology) Environmental Health (Pollution) Street Scene Services (Waste) Arboricultural Officer.

Policy:-

National Policy Guidance

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) 2014

Local Plan 2006-2026: Core Strategy 2009

None Relevant.

202

Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan 2001

Policy RES5: Residential Proposals on Unallocated Sites Policy BE1: Design and Sitting of Development Policy BE4: Alterations to a Listed Building Policy BE5: Setting of a Listed Building Policy BE6: Change of use of Listed Buildings Policy BE20: Reuse and Adaptation of Rural Buildings Policy NE2: Pollution Policy NE5: Development in the Countryside Policy T5: Highway Design and Vehicle Parking Standards

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents

Conversion of Rural Buildings (SPG) New Residential Development (SPG)

Appraisal:-

The main considerations in the determination of this application are:-

• Principle of development; • Design, Character and Impacts on the Listed Building and its Setting; • Residential Amenity; • Highways, access and parking; and • Ecology

Principle of Development

The application site is situated within the countryside.

The NPPF promotes the notion of sustainable development. It identifies the development plan as the starting point for decision making; proposals that accord with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts should be refused, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

Local Plan

Policy NE5, Development in the countryside and Policy RES5, Residential proposals on unallocated sites are the most relevant Local Plan policies in the consideration of the principle of new development in the countryside.

Policy NE5 provides criteria against which development in the countryside will be assessed. The Council has assessed the conformity of all of the saved policies against the NPPF to determine the weight to be attached to them. It is concluded that the first line of Policy NE5 regarding the protection of the countryside for its own sake is not in conformity to the NPPF and therefore should be afforded little weight.

The policy continues with criteria, against which proposals should be assessed and must demonstrate conformity, if proposals are to be approved, these criteria remain applicable and consistent with the NPPF.

Criterion b of Policy NE5 is supportive of proposals for the change of use, re-use or extension of existing buildings, particularly those of historic value. This mimics criteria within

203

Paragraph 55 of the NPPF, in respect of acceptable forms of new residential development within the countryside.

Policy RES5 relates to residential proposals on unallocated sites and suggests that residential development will not be granted unless it is within a settlement boundary. Although the intent of this policy is to direct development to the most sustainable locations, which is referenced within the NPPF, this policies view of sustainable development is too narrow and restrictive and thus the weight the policy can be attributed within the overall determination of this application, for the conversion of existing buildings, is considered limited.

The Council's SPG states that where non-agricultural conversion is being considered, the Council will normally seek to encourage conversion to a commercial, industrial or recreational use first; however this intention is not in line with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development and therefore carries little weight.

There is specific policy support for the change of use, re-use and extension of existing buildings through the NPPF and criterion b) of Policy NE5 of the Local Plan. Furthermore Paragraph 28 of the NPPF supports sustainable economic growth in rural areas through the conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings and paragraph 17 encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value.

Planning Balance

The application proposes the conversion of an existing, listed agricultural building to one new residential unit. Although the development would be located within the countryside, this factor alone would not preclude the development. On balance, given that the application proposes to re-use and upgrade the existing listed buildings, which would secure the survival of this heritage asset and bring it back into viable use, the benefits associated with the development are considered to outweigh any harm caused as result of approving the scheme in principle.

Accordingly the scheme is considered to comprise sustainable development and is considered acceptable in this respect.

Design, Character and Impacts on the Listed Building and its Setting.

Policy BE20 of the Local Plan states that in the countryside planning permission will be granted for the re-use and adaptation of the rural building unless:- a) The proposed use of the building has an adverse effect on the appearance or character of the landscape; b) The building is in a structurally unsound condition and thus incapable of conversion without significant adaptation and rebuilding; c) The proposals for re-use and adaptation are detrimental to the design, character, appearance and setting of the building; d) The conversion involves extensions that would significantly alter the form and general design of the building in a way which would detract from its existing character and appearance.

Policies BE4, BE5 and BE6 (criterion a and b) of the Local Plan aim to protect the character of listed buildings by ensuring development would not detract from the architectural or historic character of the building or its setting. The design criteria of Policy NE5 (criteria i and ii) of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that development in the countryside does not have an adverse effect on the appearance or

204 character of the landscape, and is in keeping with the scale and character of existing buildings and the general surroundings.

Policy BE1 (criterion a) of the Local Plan requires development to complement or enhance the character of the surrounding area with regard to scale, layout, mass, design, materials and architectural features.

The SPG on Conversion of Rural Buildings outlines ways in which agricultural buildings can be converted into alternative uses without compromising their original character.

The structural survey submitted with the planning application demonstrates that the buildings would be capable of conversion without resulting in significant harm to their architectural or historic fabric.

The proposed scheme, as amended, introduces amendments to the external walls of the buildings.

The single storey lean-to extensions to be demolished are later additions, which were attached to the building in a manner that enables their removal without resulting in damage to the buildings fabric. The scale and siting of these extensions unbalance the relevant the elevations of the buildings. Accordingly, the demolition of these extensions would not comprise the integrity or setting of the buildings; their removal would enable the original historic and architectural form of the buildings to be reinstated and exposed, which would help conserves their character.

Fifteen new rooflights are proposed to facilitate the conversion. These would enabling light to penetrate into the building, minimising the need for new opening to the elevations. The rooflights would be minor in scale and due to their style (conservation) would be in keeping with those existing, and would not impact adversely upon the character of the existing building. Furthermore, the rooflights would be sited on courtyard facing elevations, which are less prominent and thus they would not unbalance the composition of the buildings or detract from its character.

The five new windows proposed would be minor in scale and recessed, allowing the wall structure to dominate the elevations of the building, a notion characteristic of agricultural buildings.

The enlargement of the existing window opening on the western courtyard of the stables is not considered to compromise the character of the building, since existing fenestration on this elevation is not symmetrical nor aligned, thus the enlarged window would not unbalance the elevation.

The door proposed within the western elevation of the single story curtilage listed barn would result in partial removal of the wall. Whilst the removal of sections of the buildings original wall would not be encouraged, given that this would constitute a minor alteration and the brickwork would be reused elsewhere on the conversion, impacts on the character and fabric of the building are considered minimal.

The proposed demolition and reinstating of a small section of the wall on the eastern courtyard elevation of the curtilage listed barn is considered acceptable. It would result in required restoration of the section of wall, and as the wall would be finished with reclaimed brick where possible or matching brickwork, the character of the building would be conserved.

205

The scheme also proposes to reinstate all existing bricked up openings. This is encouraged as it would enable the restoration of the original form of the building and enhance its readability.

The full height glazed infill panels proposed to enclose the building to the northern and southern elevation of the two storey barn are considered to conserve its character of the farm building as the proposed material, glass, would not be visually intrusive.

The alterations proposed to the external elevation of the buildings, would result in the introduction of new openings which would have an impact on the elevations, however, they would not result in damage to or significant alterations to the overall appearance of the listed building thus would not detract from its character. Moreover, all new openings would be attached to building in way that does not interfere with then fabric. With the external alterations resulting in very minimal impact upon the character and appearance of the historic building, it special historic character and setting would be retained.

Internally, the scheme generally utilises existing subdivisions. However, it would introduce a first floor section within the unlisted barn and other new subdivisions would be primarily confined to the unlisted barn. Although the subdivisions would interfere with the open internal character of the existing outbuilding, in this case, the subdivision proposed is a necessary part of securing a viable use that would conserve the building's character. When considering that the proposed first floor, along with the new subdivisions would be provided without significant interference to the original fabric of the barn (due to the use of stud walls, which are recessed from the building), it is considered that these internal alterations would not result in harm to the building fabric or significant harm to its internal character.

The proposed residential curtilage identified on the site plan is considered to be excessive and would result in unnecessary encroachment into the undeveloped surrounding countryside. Amended plans have been requested illustrating a reduced curtilage; however these have not yet been received. Accordingly this issue will be further appraised as a late item. A condition to remove permitted development rights on site is also to be imposed so as to ensure that potential extensions would not have a detrimental impact upon the listed building or its setting.

The scheme is considered to result in a conversion that would retain and enhance the historic character of this listed building and its setting. Conserve and The conversion It would introduce alterations to enable the buildings to be functional as a residential dwelling, without destroying its historic fabric. The materials proposed would reflect the historic integrity of the building and would match existing where required. Furthermore, the proposal would not compromise the character of the countryside. The proposal is therefore considered to be compliant to Polices BE1 (criterion a), BE4, BE5, BE6 (criterion a and b), BE20 and, NE5 of the Local Plan.

Residential Amenity

Policy BE20 states that in the countryside planning permission will be granted for the re-use and adaptation of the rural building unless:- e) the buildings are located where the amenities of future occupiers of a proposed conversion would be adversely affected through noise, smell or other disturbance from a working farm or other rural activity.

Policy BE1 (criterion (i)) and the SPG on New Residential Development require that development does not adversely affect the amenities or privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

206

Criterion e of Policy BE20 is not relevant in respect of this application, as the site is no longer a working farm.

The farmhouse is the only residential dwelling within the immediate vicinity of the application site. Given the distance between the outbuilding and the farmhouse and the position of proposed openings, it is not considered that the development would result in any material impacts in terms of privacy. In addition, as the building is existing there would be no further overbearing or overshadowing impacts.

The creation of one additional residential unit on the site, would result in additional vehicle trips and consequential noise and disturbance impacts, however, given the scale of development proposed, such impacts are not considered to result in a material level of harm.

The other dwellings within the vicinity are sited approximately 650 metres from the proposed dwelling. Given the significant separation distance to be retained between the proposed dwelling and these dwelling within the vicinity, it is not considered that the proposal would result in any demonstrable adverse impacts upon the amenities of these dwellings.

The proposal is not considered to result in any significant adverse material impacts upon the future occupiers of the proposed residential dwelling, nor on the amenity of the existing residents of the farmhouse. As such the scheme is considered to be in accordance with Policies BE1 (criterion i) and BE20 (criterion e) of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001.

Car Parking and Highway Safety

Policy BE20 states that in the countryside planning permission will be granted for the re-use and adaptation of the rural building unless:- f) the proposal would adversely affect highway safety; h) the proposal does not comply with the LPA's standards for layout and design and highway criteria unless there are particular circumstances relate to the location concerned where those standards can reasonably be relaxed without adverse effect on the amenities of nearby residents or to the rural character of the area.

Policies NE5 (criterion iv), BE1 (criterion g) and T5 of the Local Plan require that development will not generate traffic likely to exceed the capacity of the highway network or impair road safety, provides adequate highway visibility for road users and adequate off- street vehicle parking and turning facilities.

Leicestershire County Council (Highways) have raised no objections or highways safety concerns in respect of the scheme but suggested the proposal to be considered in context of current Local Highway Authority's standing advice.

The scheme would be served by an existing single lane vehicular access off Newton Lane. This application proposes no changes to the access. Parking would be provided within the existing hardstanding courtyard area, which can accommodate multiple cars and retain adequate turning space. The proposal is for the conversion to one dwelling thus the number of vehicles likely to serve the dwelling would not be significant enough to give rise to highway safety issues. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in line with Policies BE20, T5, NE5 (criterion iv), BE1 (criterion g) of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 200.

207

Ecology

Policy BE20 states that in the countryside planning permission will be granted for the re-use and adaptation of the rural building unless:- g) the proposed conversion adversely affects any protected species;

The application is accompanied by bat survey and a bat mitigation strategy. Maternity roots for two species (Brown long-eared and a Myotis sp.) and a non-maternity Pipistrelle roost were present in 2012 in the listed barn. Leicestershire County (Council (Ecology) have considered the scheme and given the presence of maternity and non-maternity bat roosts which will be impacted by the conversion, an EPS license from Natural England is required. The bat mitigation strategy submitted by the applicant is considered to be satisfactory and no further surveys are needed subject to a condition stipulating the development is carried out in accordance with the strategy submitted. This condition is considered necessary given the presence of bat roosts on site and will be imposed.

Subject to a condition requiring the proposed development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted bat mitigation strategy, the proposal is considered to be compliant with Policy BE20 (criterion g) of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001.

Pollution

Policy NE2 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that development would not cause harm through air or soil pollution or suffer material harm from either existing or potential source if air or soil pollution.

The scheme has been considered by the Environmental Health (Pollution) and in view of the fact that site has previously be utilised as a farm, a condition requiring the submission of a comprehensive contamination report has been recommended. A further condition requesting an addendum to the approved scheme of investigation if any contamination that had not been previously identified is found present on site is also recommended. These conditions are considered to be necessary given the previous use of the site and the unclear nature of potential contamination, and will therefore be imposed. Subject to the recommended conditions the development is considered to comply with Policy NE2 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001.

Trees

The proposal would lead to the removal of some trees surrounding the site, particularly those in close proximity to the outbuilding, which may impact on the existing structure or may interfere with the proposed works. None of the trees on site are protected and thus their removal is considered acceptable.

Landscaping

The details submitted with the application suggested that the existing courtyard area would be enhanced but generally remaining as existing in respect of appearance and subdivision of hard and soft landscaping measure. To ensure that this setting is preserved further details would be secured by way of condition.

208

Drainage

The proposal has been considered by Leicestershire County Council (Drainage) who has no objections to the scheme subject to notes relating to the design, access and materials of sockaways which would accompany the decision notice.

Waste

Streetscene Services (Waste) have recommended a condition requiring a scheme for the provision for waste and recycling storage. This condition is not considered to be necessary in this case, as there would be adequate garden area to provide such facilities and the site would have access to Newton Lane where there is adequate space for collection.

Conclusion

The scheme represents a viable, sympathetic re-use of a listed outbuilding. This would lead to the enhancement its setting and the surrounding countryside. The development would also ensure the long term future of the heritage asset and its setting. These benefits result in a sustainable form of development which would outweigh any harm resultant of the developments unsustainable location. Furthermore, the proposal would not result in any adverse impacts on residential amenity, highway safety or protected species. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policies BE1 (criteria a, i and g), BE4, BE5, BE6, BE20, NE2, NE5 and T5 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001 and the overarching intentions of the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION:- Grant subject to conditions.

Summary of Reasons for Recommendation and Relevant Development Plan Policies :

Having regard to the pattern of existing development in the area, representations received and relevant provisions of the development plan, as summarised below according to their degree of consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework, it is considered that subject to compliance with the conditions attached to this permission, the proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan as it is a sustainable development, would not result in any material impacts upon the special architectural or historical interest of the Grade II Listed Building, would preserve the setting of the Listed Building and, the character of the countryside, and would not have any adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring dwellings, ecology or highway safety.

Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001: Policies BE1 (criteria a, i and g), BE4, BE5, BE6, BE20, NE2, NE5, and T5.

Conditions:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the submitted application details, as follows: -

209

Dwg No. 11 Rev 1 Proposed Elevations, Dwg No. 110 Rev A GA Ground Floor Plans, Dwg No. 111 Rev B GA First Floor Plans, Dwg No. 400 Fire Tender Access, Dwg No. 12 Rev B Proposed Sections and Dwg No. 14 Rev D Proposed Long Sections received on 30 January 2015.

Dwg No. 02 Rev B Site Location Plan received on 21 August 2014.

3 Before any development commences, representative samples of the types and colours of materials to be used on the new external walls of the proposed conversion; shall be deposited with and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include brick samples, bonding pattern and mortar mix, and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with those approved materials.

4 Before any development commences, representative samples of the types and colours of slate to be used on the external roof of the proposed conversion; shall be deposited with and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with those approved materials.

5 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the investigation of any potential land contamination on the site has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority which shall be dealt with. The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and any remediation works so approved shall be carried out prior to the site first being occupied.

6 If during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site, no further development shall take place until an addendum to the scheme for the investigation of all potential land contamination is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which shall include details of how the unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. Any prior remediation works so approved shall be carried out prior to the site first being occupied.

7 The development hereby permitted shall be in complete accordance with the Mitigation Strategy for Replacement Bat Roost Habitat dated April 14 received by the Local Planning Authority on the 21 August 2014.

8 Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (or any order revoking or re- enacting that order with or without modification), no addition, extension, dormer window, building, structure, enclosure, gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure shall be erected, constructed or placed on the site without the grant of planning permission for such extensions by the Local Planning Authority.

9 All services for the hereby approved conversion shall be contained within the shell of the building and retained as such thereafter.

10 Before any development commences representative samples of the types and colours of materials to be used for the full height glazed infil panels shall be deposited with and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with those approved materials.

11 Before any development commences representative samples of the types and colours of materials to be used for the new fenestration shall be deposited with and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with those approved materials.

210

12 Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include:-

a) hard surfacing materials b) planting plans c) schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate. d) proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, pipelines, manholes, supports, etc).

Reasons:-

1 To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3&4 To ensure that the development has a satisfactory external appearance to accord with Policies BE1 (criterion a), BE4, BE6 (criteria a and b), BE20, BE20 and NE5 of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan.

5&6 To protect future occupiers of the site from any potential contamination remaining as a result of the previous use in accordance with Policy NE2 of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

7 For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

8 To protect the character and appearance of the existing buildings and surrounding rural landscape to accord with Policies BE4, BE5, NE5 (criterion i), NE21 and BE20 (criterion a) of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001.

9 To preserve the character of the listed building and its setting in accordance with Policies BE4, BE5, and BE6 (criterion a and b) of the adopted Local Plan.

10&11 To ensure that the development has a satisfactory external appearance to accord with Policies BE1 (criterion a), BE4, BE6 (criteria a and b), BE20, BE20 and NE5 of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan.

12 To preserve the setting of the listed building to accord with Policy BE5 of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan.

Notes to Applicant:-

3 As from 6 April 2008 this Authority are charging for the discharge of conditions in accordance with revised fee regulations which came into force on that date.

211

Application forms to discharge conditions and further information can be found on the planning portal web site www.planningportal.gov.uk.

4 All works within the limits of the Highway with regard to the access shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Southern Area Manager (0116 3052202).

5 The suitability of the ground strata for soakaway drainage should be ascertained by means of the test described in BRE Digest 365, and the results approved by the Building Control Surveyor before development is commenced. The soakaway must be constructed either as a brick or concrete-lined perforated chamber with access for maintenance, or alternatively assembled from modular surface water storage/soakaway cell systems, incorporating silt traps. Design and construction of all types of soakaway will be subject to the approval of the Building Control Surveyor.

6 Access drives, parking and turning areas, paths and patios should be constructed in a permeable paving system, with or without attenuation storage, depending on ground strata permeability. On low-permeability sites surface water dispersal may be augmented by piped land drains, installed in the foundations of the paving, discharging to an approved outlet (See Environment Agency guidance on the permeable surfacing of front gardens).

Contact Officer:- Beatrice Kunaka Ext 5691

212

Item: 07

Reference: 14/00827/LBC

Applicant: Mr R & A Dhir

Location: Odstone Hill House Newton Lane Odstone

Proposal: Conversion of existing outbuilding to form one new dwelling.

RECOMMENDATION:- Grant subject to conditions.

Introduction:-

This application is to be considered at Planning Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, as the proposed floor space is greater than 500 square metres.

The application should be read in conjunction with application ref: 14/00780/FUL which seeks full planning permission for the proposed scheme.

Application Proposal

The application seeks full planning permission to convert an existing agricultural buildings at Odstone Hill House into one residential dwelling.

Alterations proposed to the single storey barn, would include four new windows and a door in the western elevation. Demolition and re-build of a small section of brickwork, and the insertion of six roof lights in the eastern elevation. The scheme would also reinstate all existing bricked up openings in the barn and replace the asbestos roof with slate.

During the course of the application amended plans, amending elevation details have been received and re-consulted upon.

The Site and Surrounding Area

213 storey building with a single storey, single-bay pavillion with hipped roof set back on each side. The outbuilding and farmhouse are arranged around a central concrete courtyard.

The site is accessed by a 650 meter single track off Newton Lane.

The original buildings date back to the late 18th century.

The site is relatively isolated with no other properties within the immediate vicinity. The nearest dwellings are approximately 660 meters from the site.

Technical Documents submitted with the Application

Relevant Planning History:-

14/00780/FUL Conversion of existing outbuilding Pending Consideration to form one new dwelling

99/01096/FUL Conversion of agricultural building Approved 19.05.00 into one dwelling

99/00656/LBC Alterations to dwelling Listed 10.09.99

214

Consultations:-

As this is a Listed Building application for a Grade II listed building, no consultations have been conducted.

Policy:-

National Policy Guidance

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) 2014 Section72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990

Local Plan 2006-2026: Core Strategy 2009

None Relevant.

Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan 2001

Policy BE4: Alterations to a Listed Building Policy BE5: Setting of a Listed Building Policy BE6: Change of use of Listed Buildings

215

Appraisal:-

The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990 requires that in considering proposal that related to listed building "Local Planning Authorities must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historical interests which it possesses".

As such, the main considerations in determination of this application is whether the proposed change of use would preserve the special architectural and historic character of the building and its setting to accord with Policies BE4, BE5 and BE6 (criteria a and b) of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001.

Impacts on the Architectural and Historic Character of the Listed Building and its Setting

The existing outbuilding is grade II listed. It has a physical and functional relationship with the main grade II listed farmhouse which, together, forms a strongly defined historic farmstead setting. The heritage assessment submitted with the application provides clear indication of the historic significance of the outbuilding such that it is fundamental to establish a use for the building to preserve its character and ensure its long term future.

The structural survey submitted with the planning application suggests that the building is capable of conversion without resulting in significant damage to the historic fabric of the building. A condition requiring the proposed works to be carried out in accordance with the submitted structural survey will be imposed to ensure the survival of the historic fabric during the conversion.

External Alterations

The application proposes a number of alterations to the external elevations of the outbuilding.

The existing single storey lean-to/store on the northern elevation of the outbuilding is proposed to be demolished. The list entry details of the outbuilding identify this lean-to as an additional stable block. Its status as an additional structure is reflected by the finishing materials which do not match that of and form no relationship to that on the main outbuilding. Accordingly, removal of this inappropriate extension would enable the restoration of the original form of the building.

The single storey lean-to/store on the western courtyard elevation of the stables is also proposed to be demolished. This lean-to/store is very small in scale and is finished in materials that match existing. The lean-to can also be identified a later addition as it is omitted list entry details. While the extension is in keeping with the original fabric, its removal is not considered to detract from the architectural and historic fabric of the building as it did not originally form part of it.

Both lean-to structures proposed for demolition are later additions which were attached to the building in a manner that enables their removal without resulting in damage to the building fabric.

Five new windows are proposed on the outbuilding. All the windows are small in scale and recessed. While they would result in removal of brickwork to some sections of the wall, their proposed scale is in keeping with the existing windows and rooflights on the outbuilding and the windows would not dominate the wall plate of the outbuilding, thus its would retain its agricultural character.

216

The scheme proposes to enlarge the existing window on the western courtyard elevation of the stables. This alteration is not considered to compromise the character of the building, since existing fenestration on this elevation is not symmetrical nor aligned, thus the enlarged window would not unbalance the elevation.

The application proposes fifteen rooflights as part of the conversion. All the proposed roof lights on the scheme would be conservation style and would sit flush with the roof. Their scale matches those existing. Full details in respect of materials and the manner in which the rooflights would be inserted to the building will be secured by condition and the Local Planning Authority can ensure that the additional rooflights would not be detrimental to the historic building in this respect. When considering the submitted details and he existing rooflights, it is not considered that these additions would detract from the buildings character.

The door to be inserted on the western elevation of the barn would also be recessed thus the original wall would remain as the dominant structure of building.

The full height glazed infill panel proposed on the northern and southern elevations of the barn would occupy an existing opening. While this, along with other glazed feature proposed on the building are not characteristic of farm buildings, their proposed finishing materials, glass, results in a feature that would not be visually prominent.

The proposal would retain original materials wherever possible, repairing or reinstating as necessary. The traditional architectural features including the pattern of historic air vents would be retained. The roof profile would be retained as existing with the asbestos roof on the single storey barn being replaced by a slate roof, improving the relationship of this section of the building with two storey barn and stables.

Internal Alterations

Internally, the conversion would predominantly utilise existing subdivisions. This said, a first floor section would be added within the listed two storey barn, however other subdivisions would be confined to the curtilage listed barn. Although the subdivisions would impact upon the open internal character of part of the existing outbuilding, in this case, they are considered necessary as part of securing a viable use that would conserve the building's character.

The proposed first floor and new subdivisions would be inserted without significant interruption to the original fabric of the outbuilding, due to the use of stud walls which would be recessed from the walls of the building. Accordingly, it is considered that these internal alterations would not result in harm to the building fabric or its internal character. Furthermore, the proposal would retain a substantial void section, where the single storey barn retains its open two storeys height, thus retaining its open character.

The scheme represents a sustainable reuse of a grade II listed agricultural building that does not detract from its special architectural and historical interest subject to conditions which would ensure that their historic interest is retained.

Subject to conditions, the proposed works are therefore considered to conserve and enhance the historic character of the listed outbuilding as the scheme would preserve the historic fabric, character and appearance of the building and in turn, enhance its setting and that of the physically linked farmhouse. Accordingly, subject to conditions, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policies BE4, BE5 and BE6 (criterion a and b) of the adopted Local Plan 2001.

217

RECOMMENDATION:- Grant subject to conditions.

Summary of Reasons for Recommendation and Relevant Development Plan Policies :

Having regard to the historic fabric, character and setting of the Grade II Listed Building, designs and uses of materials, representations received and relevant provisions of the development plan, as summarised below according to their degree of consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework, it is considered that subject to compliance with the conditions attached to this permission, the proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan as the proposed works would detract from the historic nature of the Grade II listed building and would preserve its setting.

Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan (2001): Policies BE4, BE5 and BE6 (criterion a and b).

Conditions:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the submitted application details, as follows:

Dwg No. 02 Rev B Site Location Plan received on 21 August 2014.

2 Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, a method statement specifying the process of the underpinning works, including demonstrating that the works will not have a detrimental impact on the structural integrity of the listed fabric whilst the works are being undertaken shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with those approved details.

3 Before any development commences on the glazed infill panel, full details including sections shall be deposited with and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with those approved details.

4 No works shall be undertaken to the internal cupola until section details of the internal cupola glazing have been deposited with and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with those approved details.

5 Notwithstanding the submitted details, before any development commences, full details of the slates to be used on the external roof of the proposed conversion; shall be deposited with and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with those approved materials.

218

6 Notwithstanding the submitted details, before any development, full details of the doors including treatment, proposed glazing and joinery shall be deposited with and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with those approved details.

7 Notwithstanding the submitted details, before any development commences, full details of the new windows including treatment, proposed glazing and joinery details shall be shall be deposited with and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include brick samples, bonding pattern and mortar mix, and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with those approved details.

8 Before any development commences full details of the new rainwater goods, including methods of fixing, to used on the hereby approved dwelling; shall be deposited with and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with those approved details.

Reasons:-

1 For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2-8 To ensure that the development has a satisfactory external appearance so as to preserve the listed building and its setting to accord with Policies BE4, BE5 and BE6 (criteria a and b) of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan.

Notes to Applicant:-

4 All works within the limits of the Highway with regard to the access shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Southern Area Manager (0116 3052202).

Contact Officer:- Beatrice Kunaka Ext 5691

219

Item: 08

Reference: 15/00027/HOU

Applicant: Mrs C Southall

Location: 15 Spinney Road Burbage

Proposal: Proposed rear extensions and alterations to raise the roof to provide living accommodation at the first floor (revised proposal)

RECOMMENDATION:- Grant subject to conditions.

Introduction:-

This application is to be considered at Planning Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, as objections have been received from more than five addresses.

Application Proposal

This application seeks full planning permission to raise the height of the roof of the existing dormer bungalow to create a two storey dwelling. This would result in an increase in the height of the dwelling from 5.5 metres to 7.2 metres. A rear extension is proposed to project 2.5 metres from the rear elevation of the dwelling. Two dormer windows and a velux window are proposed to the front elevation and 6 velux windows are proposed to the roof of the rear elevation.

The Site and Surrounding Area

The dwelling comprises of a detached dormer bungalow and is sited within Spinney Road. The dwelling is constructed from red brick with brown roof tiles with white UPVC framed windows and doors. The curtilage is defined by a 1.5 metre high boundary fence with trellising to a height of 2 metres. The surrounding area consists of a range of detached dwellings both single storey and two storey in nature. The properties to the rear of the application site are predominantly detached bungalows.

Relevant Planning History:-

14/00181/HOU Extensions and alterations to Withdrawn 29.04.14 Dwelling

14/00753/HOU Extensions and alterations to Approved 04.12.14 dwelling (revised scheme)

220

Consultations:-

An objection has been received from Burbage Parish Council. Summary of comments:- a) the development would have an unsatisfactory relationship with other nearby uses b) the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the surrounding properties c) the height and location of the landing window is considered to result in an unacceptable impact in terms of privacy and an over-bearing form d) the proposal would result in an incongruous and uncomplimentary form of development that is out of keeping and detrimental to the street scene.

Neighbours were notified and eight letters of neighbour representation have been received raising the following issues:- a) altering the height of the dwelling goes against government building regulations b) bungalow stocks in Hinckley & Bosworth should be protected c) concern that the height and depth of the proposed roof and the garden would be able to facilitate a large extension d) the proposed roof with the inclusion of windows will result in views over neighbouring gardens resulting in a loss of privacy e) the extension would be defined as a rebuild of the property and not in keeping with surrounding properties f) allowing the proposal will set a precedent for the future g) the current application replicates the previously withdrawn application and has increased the roofline by 18 inches similar to the previous scheme

221 h) the distance from the dwelling to the rear boundary would result in an over imposing impact on neighbouring properties i) the proposal would result in the building being as big as a house rather than a dormer bungalow due to elevated eaves j) the proposal would result in changes being made to the existing street scene due to style of finish and dwelling type k) the ground floor will be closer to the boundary to achieve the required pitch l) the plans are outdated and do not show the current building lines and distances between properties.

Policy:-

National Policy Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) 2014

Local Plan 2006-2026: Core Strategy 2009

Policy 4: Development in Burbage

Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan 2001

Policy BE1: Design and Siting of the Development

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents

House Extensions (SPG) Burbage Village Design Statement

Appraisal:-

The main considerations in determination of this application are:-

• Design and impacts on the character and appearance of the area • Impacts upon residential amenity • Highway considerations

Design and impacts upon the character and appearance of the area

Policy BE1 (criterion a) of the Local Plan seeks a high standard of design to safeguard and enhance the existing environment through a criteria based policy. These criteria include ensuring the development complements or enhances the character of the surrounding area with regard to scale, layout, density, mass, design, materials and architectural features. The Burbage Village Design Statement (BVDS) seeks houses to be matched in terms of design and scale with neighbouring properties and states that extensions, conversions and alterations be of a design and scale compatible with the original dwelling. Furthermore, one of the core planning principles of the NPPF is to secure a high quality of design in development.

The application property comprises a bungalow with a staggered front elevation which consists of an existing forward projecting gabled roof and porch. The alterations to raise the height of the roof and introduction of the extension to the rear are extensive and would change the existing character of the property. Whilst the scale and height of the dwelling

222 would be increased, it is considered that the proposal would result in a well designed property with balanced proportions. The visual appearance of the dwelling would complement the wider character of the area and street scene which contains a mix of bungalows and two storey dwellings. A number of other bungalows have already been extended to create additional floor space along with existing two storey dwellings. The proposal is not considered to constitute over development, nor would it compromise the character of the street scene. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy BE1 (criterion a) of the Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

Impacts Upon Residential Amenity

Policy BE1 (criterion i) states that proposals should not detrimentally impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties.

The proposed rear extension would project 2.5 metres from the furthest point of the existing rear elevation of the property and would be set off the common boundary to the side of the application dwelling by 5.5 metres. No. 11 Spinney Road is located to the north of the application dwelling and is a detached bungalow. This property features windows to the rear elevation with two obscure glazed windows to the side. There are two windows proposed to the side elevation of proposal, however by virtue of the boundary treatment consisting of a 1.5 metre high boundary fence with trellising to a height of 2 metres. By further of the fact that these proposed windows would replace existing ground floor windows, they are not considered to result in any further impacts in terms of overlooking.

No. 17 Spinney Road is located to the south of the application dwelling and is a detached bungalow. Whilst there are windows located to the rear elevation of the neighbouring property there are no windows proposed which would overlook any of the habitable rooms of this property. Given the location of the proposed extension set back from the roof of the existing garage and with no additional windows proposed to what exists, it is not considered to result in any impacts in terms of overlooking and overshadowing.

No. 12 Woodfield Road is located to the rear (east) of the application dwelling and is a detached bungalow. The windows proposed to the rear roof slope consist of four roof lights to the first floor. Two of the roof lights are proposed to serve bathrooms, one is proposed to serve the staircase and one is proposed to a bedroom. There would be a separation distance of 20 metres between the proposed roof lights at the first floor and the rear of No. 12. This property features a garden room/conservatory to the rear and the roof lights would be 22 metres from the rear wall of this habitable room. Whilst this distance is less than the 25 metres as set out in the SPG on House Extensions, the proposed roof lights to the rear roof slope would be over 1.8 metres from floor height and therefore they would be high enough not to create a significant detrimental impact in terms of overlooking. Furthermore, three of the roof lights proposed serve non-habitable rooms such as bathrooms and a staircase. Therefore it is not considered that No. 12 would result in a significant loss of privacy through overlooking.

Based on the above, the proposal is not considered to result in any significantly detrimental impacts in terms of residential amenity and is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy BE1 (criterion i) of the Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan.

Other Matters

Concern has been raised that bungalow stocks in Hinckley & Bosworth should be protected. Whilst the Council would wish to see a mix of housing types and stock across the borough, this point is not a material planning consideration in the determination of this application.

223

Concern has been raised in respect of the accuracy of the plans. The case officer has visited the site and taken measurements to ensure the distances quoted are accurate and the plans reflect what is being proposed.

Parking and Highway Standards

The existing integral garage meets the minimum requirements contained within Leicestershire County Council's 6C's Design Guidance and can be counted towards parking provision on site. There is also adequate off street parking available within the site for parking which is not impacted upon by the scheme.

Conclusion

Raising the roof of the dwelling and erecting a rear extension is not considered to result in any significant harm to the character of the area or the wider street scene. The proposal would be acceptable in terms of design and would not result in any significant detrimental harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents. The application is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy BE1 (criteria a and i) of the Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan and the design guidance as set out in the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION:- Grant subject to conditions.

Summary of Reasons for Recommendation and Relevant Development Plan Policies :

Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan (2001):- Policy BE1 (criteria a and i). Local Plan 2006-2026: Core Strategy (2009):- Policy 4.

Conditions:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

2 The proposed development hereby permitted shall not be carried out unless in complete accordance with the following: Site Location Plan at a scale of 1:1250 received 14 January 2015; Site Block Plan at a scale of 1:500 received 14 January 2015; Existing and Proposed Elevations (drawing 14 01 05C) at a scale of 1:100 received 14 January 2015; Proposed Plans and Elevations (drawing 14 01 04D) at a scale of 1:100 received 14 January 2015.

3 The materials to be used on the external front elevation shall be rendered in accordance with drawing 14 01 04D with all other external elevations of the proposed extensions and alterations to match the corresponding materials of the existing dwelling.

224

Reasons:-

1 To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3 To ensure that the development has a satisfactory external appearance to accord with Policy BE1 (criterion a) of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan.

Notes to Applicant:-

4 All works within the limits of the Highway with regard to the access shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Southern Area Manager (0116 3052202).

Contact Officer:- Joanne Orton Ext 5666

225

Item: 09

Reference: 14/01220/FUL

Applicant: Mrs J Baines

Location: Wood Farm Stanton Lane Ellistown

Proposal: Extension of existing livestock building

RECOMMENDATION:- Grant subject to conditions.

Introduction:-

This application is to be considered at Planning Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, as the floor space of the proposed development exceeds 500 square metres.

Application Proposal

This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of an agricultural building to house cattle. The proposal would be located within the farm complex at Wood Farm, Ellistown which is a working farm comprising some 300 acres of land.

The building is required to house cattle, and to store farm equipment and straw. The existing farm buildings within the site are currently being utilised for the storage of agricultural machinery and to house cattle. The proposal would form an extension to the existing agricultural building.

The proposed building would have a gross floor space of 559 square metres and would be approximately 30metres in length by 18metres in width. The height of the proposal to the ridge would be approximately 7.4 metres with an asymmetrical gabled roof. The proposal would be constructed from concrete panels with timber treated Yorkshire boarding with grey fibre cement corrugated roof sheets to match the existing farm buildings. The building would be erected on the existing hard standing within the farm complex.

The Site and Surrounding Area

The site is located to the north east of Bagworth and is within the open countryside. The site is situated along Stanton Lane which is accessed from Victoria Lane. The site benefits from open views from the surrounding countryside and is visible from both Stanton Lane and Victoria Lane.

The existing farm complex comprises of a number of agricultural buildings with the main residential dwelling sited to the front of the complex facing Stanton Lane and is located to the west of the application site. The proposed agricultural building will be located adjoining an existing livestock barn with other buildings being used to store agricultural machinery and straw. The site is partially obscured from the public highway by a conifer hedge which assists with screening the farmyard from public view.

Supporting Information

Additional justification has been received from the applicant providing details of the cattle and arable enterprise through the keeping of a beef suckler herd where they rear and fatten the calves that are produced. The new livestock building is proposed to provide additional

226 housing for the cattle in order to improve the living conditions and ease the management of the herd. The building will also be used for the storage of fodder and other general storage purposes in order to protect machinery and condition of feedstock's.

Relevant Planning History:-

09/00649/GDO Erection of livestock and general Approved 25.09.09 purpose building

Consultations:-

No objections have been received from:-

Environmental Health (Pollution) The Coal Authority.

A site notice was displayed and neighbours notified. No representations received.

Policy:-

National Policy Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) 2014

227

Local Plan 2006-2026: Core Strategy 2009

Policy 7: Key Rural Centres Policy 10: Key Rural Centres within the National Forest Policy 21: National Forest

Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan 2001

Policy BE1: Design and Siting of the Development Policy NE5: Development in the Countryside Policy NE10: Local Landscape Improvement Areas Policy T5: Highway Design and Vehicle Parking Standards

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents

Guide to Design of Farm Buildings (SPG)

Appraisal:-

The main considerations in determination of this application are:-

• the principle of development • the siting and design of the building and the impact on visual amenity and the countryside • residential amenity • highway safety

Principle of Development

The proposal seeks planning permission for the erection of a livestock building within the grounds of an existing farm and adjoining an existing livestock building. The site is located outside of the settlement boundary of Bagworth as defined in the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan Proposals Map. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seeks to protect the countryside whilst allowing for sustainable development where appropriate. Paragraph 28 of the NPPF supports the development of agricultural business in order to promote a strong rural economy. Furthermore, Policy NE5 of the Local Plan supports development in the countryside that is important to the local economy and can not be provided within or adjacent to existing settlements.

As the application is for a proposed agricultural building to house livestock within an existing agricultural enterprise within the countryside, the proposal is therefore considered acceptable in accordance with the NPPF and Policy NE5 of the Local Plan subject to all other planning matters being appropriately addressed.

Siting, Design and Impact on the Surrounding Countryside

Policy BE1 and Policy NE5 of the Local Plan state that development should not have an adverse effect on the appearance or character of the landscape and should be in keeping with the scale and character of existing buildings and its general surroundings. In addition the SPG on Design of Farm Buildings states that the position of a new farm building or structure is usually dependent on its function and the space available, but that the siting of any new building in the countryside is important in view of the visual impact it can have on the landscape. As such, wherever possible new buildings should be located close to existing buildings or landscape features and within the farm complex itself.

228

The proposed building will be sited within the existing farm complex and will be constructed on the hard standing located adjacent to the existing livestock building. The proposed building will have galvanized gates and finished with concrete panels and treated Yorkshire timber boarding. The proposal will feature an asymmetrical gabled roof with grey fibre cement corrugated roof sheets to match the existing farm buildings within the complex. The site of the proposal is partially obscured by the existing farm buildings within the site along with the conifer hedge which assists with screening the farmyard from public view. Given the location of the proposed agricultural building it would not be unduly prominent or visually harmful to the surrounding countryside and complements the character of the existing agricultural use of the site. It is therefore considered that this application is in accordance with Policy BE1 (criterion a) and NE5 (criterion ii) of the Local Plan and the SPG on the Guide to the Design of Farm Buildings.

Impact on Residential Amenity

Policy BE1 (criterion i) requires that the development does not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties. The nearest residential property, Bramblewood, is located to the west of the application site and is detached. The neighbouring property is approximately 90 metres away from the proposed agricultural building. Given the fact the building will be located within the existing farm complex and the separation distance to the neighbouring property, no adverse impact on residential amenity will arise. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy BE1 (criterion i) of the Local Plan.

Impact on Highway Safety

Policies NE5 (criterion iv), BE1 (criterion g) and T5 require that development will not generate traffic likely to exceed the capacity of the highway network or impact upon highway safety and that adequate access, parking and manoeuvring facilities are provided within the site. There is adequate access, parking and manoeuvring within the farm complex to accommodate traffic associated with the farm. There is an existing access track from Stanton Lane which is adequate to serve the proposed development. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy NE5 (criterion iv) and T5 of the adopted Local Plan.

Conclusion

The NPPF supports the development of agricultural businesses and as such an agricultural building within an existing farm complex is sustainable and acceptable in principle. As a result of the siting, scale and design of the building together with the proposed materials the proposal would not have any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the site or the surrounding countryside. As a result of the existing use of the site and scale of the proposal there will be no adverse impact on the amenities of any neighbouring properties. The proposal will not have any adverse impact on highway safety. The proposals are therefore in accordance with adopted Local Plan Policies NE5 and BE1 together with the SPG on Design of Farm Buildings and Paragraph 28 of the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION:- Grant subject to conditions.

Summary of Reasons for Recommendation and Relevant Development Plan Policies :

229 development is considered acceptable within the farm setting and by virtue of the siting, scale, design and proposed materials there would not be any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the site or surrounding countryside, residential amenity, or highway safety.

Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan (2001):- Policies BE1, NE5, NE10 and T5

Hinckley and Bosworth Core Strategy (2009):- Policies 7, 10 and 21

Conditions:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

2 The proposed development hereby permitted shall not be carried out unless in complete accordance with the following: Site Location Plan at a scale of 1:5000; Site Block Plan at a scale of 1:1250 received 9 December 2015; Proposed Livestock Building at a scale of 1:200 received 19 January 2015; Proposed Plans and Elevations (drawing GA01 Rev A) at a scale of 1:200 received 9 December 2015

3 The development shall be constructed in accordance with the material details shown on section 9 of the application form.

Reasons:-

1 To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3 To ensure that the development has a satisfactory external appearance to accord with policy BE1 of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan.

Notes to Applicant:-

4 All works within the limits of the Highway with regard to the access shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Southern Area Manager (0116 3052202).

Contact Officer:- Joanne Orton Ext 5666

230

Item: 10

Reference: 14/01248/FUL

Applicant: Mr David Lock

Location: Aston Oaks Sapcote Road Burbage

Propos al: Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of new dwelling

RECOMMENDATION:- Grant subject to conditions.

Introduction:-

This application is to be considered at Planning Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, as the site area is over 0.5 ha.

Application Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the demolition of an existing one and a half storey dwelling and the erection of a replacement dwelling.

The proposal is for a four bedroomed dwelling with single storey elements to the south and west elevations and two storey aspects to the rear and east elevations. The proposal contains a projecting glazed timber porch to the front elevation. The proposed dwelling would incorporate an integral double garage with a footprint of 442 square metres. The proposed dwelling has a maximum length (east-west) of 30.3 metres and maximum width (north-south) of 25 metres. The maximum ridge height of the proposal varies from a maximum of 7.5 to 4.3 metres.

The Site and Surrounding Area

The site is approximately 0.6 hectares in size and is located to the north of Sapcote Road, Burbage. The site is situated on the boundary of the borough of Hinckley & Bosworth and the district of Blaby.

The site is outside of the settlement boundary for Burbage, as defined by the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan proposals map (2001). Whilst the site is defined as being within the countryside it is sited approximately 300 metres to the north east of the settlement boundary for Burbage.

The site contains several mature trees, specifically along the southern and eastern boundary and is adjacent to Aston Firs Wood.

A one and a half storey dwelling stands in the centre of the site. It is constructed from buff brown brick with clay tiles with two small dormer windows to the front roof slope. A garage is connected to the property by a lean-to structure. The existing dwelling has a footprint of 205 square metres and is 23.8 metres in length (east-west) and 8.6 metres in width (north-south). The ridge height of the building (excluding the lean to and garage) is 6.3 metres. The site is served by an access off Sapcote Road and there is parking for three or more vehicles.

231

Technical Documents submitted with the application

Design and Access Statement Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Protected Species Structural Survey Tree Survey Landscape Context

Relevant Planning History:-

None relevant.

Consultations:-

No objections have been received from:-

Leicestershire County Council (Ecology) Burbage Parish Council.

Leicestershire County Council (Tree Officer) has raised concerns with the impact of the development upon the mature trees on site and recommends conditions in regard to the protection of the existing trees.

A site notice was displayed and neighbours notified. No representations received.

232

Policy:-

National Policy Guidance

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) 2014

Local Plan 2006-2026: Core Strategy 2009

Policy 4: Development in Burbage Policy 24: Sustainable Design and Technology

Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan 2001

Policy RES5: Residential Proposals on Unallocated Sites Policy RES10: Replacement Dwellings Policy NE5: Development within the Countryside Policy NE12: Landscaping Schemes Policy BE1: Design and Siting of Development Policy T5: Highway Design and Vehicle Parking Standards

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents

New Residential Development (SPG)

Other Material Policy Guidance

Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Pre- Submission) - February 2014. Burbage Village Design Statement SPD

Appraisal:-

The main considerations in the determination of this application are:-

• Principle of development • Design of proposal and its relationship to the character and appearance of the area • Highway considerations • Impact on trees • Impact on residential amenity

Principle of development

233

Burbage forms part of the Hinckley sub regional centre and Policy 4 of the adopted Core Strategy (2009) seeks to promote residential development in Burbage which contributes to its character and sense of place. The settlement is outside the settlement boundary for Burbage, as identified in the Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan (2001), and is therefore classed as being within the countryside. The site is approximately 300 metres away from the edge of Burbage. Saved Policy NE5 of the adopted Local Plan (2001) seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake and restricts new residential development.

However, there is an existing dwelling on site which is proposed to be demolished. Saved Policy RES10 of the Local Plan (2001) allows for replacement dwellings in the countryside, if there is special justification for the development and if it meets the following criteria:- a) It is of a similar size and scale to that of the original dwelling; and b) it is built on a similar footprint or, where appropriate and less detrimental to the character of appearance of the countryside, within the curtilage of the original dwelling.

A structural survey has been submitted with the application, which states that due to the extent of defects observed with the existing structure it is considered unsuitable for reuse and the structure should be demolished entirely. Due to the structural issues identified with the existing building there is special justification for a replacement dwelling in this location.

The principle of a replacement dwelling in this location is acceptable and in accordance with both the NPPF and Policy RES10 of the Local Plan.

Design of proposal and its relationship to the character and appearance of the area

Saved Policy RES10 of the Local Plan (2001) requires replacement dwellings in the countryside to be of a similar size and scale and follow a similar footprint to the original dwelling to ensure the development does not result in the loss of rural and visual amenity of the countryside.

The proposed dwelling would incorporate the footprint and position within the site of the existing dwelling to be demolished. The footprint of the proposed dwelling is however double that of the existing dwelling on site (442 square metres). The applicant has demonstrated within their submission that extensions could be undertaken to the existing dwelling through 'permitted development' which would extend the footprint of the building by 361 square metres to a total footprint of 566 square metres.

The height of the proposed building is, in places, 1.1 metres higher than the existing dwelling and is both wider and longer. The proposal has been designed to be single storey to the front and western side, as these elevations are visible from within the streetscene. The elevations to the north and east are two storeys. Whilst the proposed dwelling is larger than the one it proposes to replace it is considered that the design reduces the impact and scale of the proposal significantly, limiting its impact upon the wider character and appearance of the area.

Mature trees and hedging exist to the southern and western boundaries of the site, which provide significant screening. Therefore there are limited public views into the site from within the streetscene along Sapcote Road. The access provides a gap in planting to the southern

234

(roadside) elevation; however the access is tree lined and therefore screens views of the current dwelling and would also screen the proposed dwelling.

The materials proposed for this development are red brick, treated oak windows and doors, lead flashing and cast metal rainwater goods, with clay roof tiles. The proposed materials are generally in keeping with the local vernacular. However, to ensure that the materials are in keeping and reflect the character of the area a condition is included to request details and samples of the proposed materials to be used.

A sustainability statement has been submitted with the application, although the proposal does not state explicitly the methods to be used in this development it indicates that the proposal has been designed to have as close to zero running costs as possible. This will be achieved by high specification building fabric and renewable systems. This will include high standards of thermal insulation, compliance of design with lifetime homes standards, rainwater harvesting and photovoltaics/air source heat pumps/biomass boilers. Policy 24 of the Core Strategy seeks to encourage sustainable design and technology in new development through the Code for Sustainable Homes. The government has indicated its intent to phase out the Code of Sustainable Homes into building regulations in due course. Therefore whilst this proposal would not necessarily meet the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 standard it would nevertheless feature technology designed to make it sustainable and it is considered to comply with the intentions of Policy 24.

Although it is acknowledged that the proposal is significantly larger than the existing dwelling, the proposal has been designed to limit the impact of the dwelling and existing mature trees limit public views into the site. It is therefore concluded that the development would not have a detrimental impact to the character and appearance of the area which is predominantly surrounded by trees and woodland. The proposal is therefore in accordance with saved Policies RES10 and BE1 (criterion a) of the Local Plan (2001).

Highway considerations

No comments have been received from Leicestershire County Council Highways in regards to this application.

No changes are proposed to the existing access to the site.

The development will provide parking for three cars, which is in accordance with the parking requirements set out in Appendix D of the Local Plan (2001).

The proposal would not result in any highway safety issues and is therefore in accordance with saved Policy T5 of the Local Plan (2001).

Impact on trees

Policy NE12 of the Local Plan states that development proposals should take into account the existing landscaping features of the site and should make provision for further landscaping where appropriate.

The site includes many mature trees, to the boundaries, along the access and within the site. These trees provide important screening to the site and also are important to the character of this area. It is therefore important that the trees and the character they add is retained and not harmed through the development of this site.

235

There are several small, less significant trees within the site which will be lost as a result of the development. These trees are not easily visible from public view and provide little amenity value. The loss of these trees is considered to be acceptable. However, to ensure the site remains well screened and the loss of trees on this site does not alter the character of the area a condition requiring a landscaping scheme is included.

The mature trees along the access boundary of the site are important to the character of the area. The development should not have a detrimental impact upon these trees and to ensure this a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) is required, which will identify and recommend adequate protection measures for the trees on site. A TPP has not been submitted as part of the application and therefore a condition is recommended requiring a site specific Tree Protection Plan, in accordance with BS5837:2012 to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of works.

Impact on Residential Amenity

Policy BE1 (criterion i) states that development proposals should not have an impact upon neighbouring residential properties.

No other dwellings neighbour the site and therefore it is not considered that the proposal would create an issue in terms of impacts to neighbouring amenity.

Conclusion

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The site is within the countryside outside the settlement boundary for Burbage. However, the proposal involves a replacement dwelling. The existing dwelling has structural defects and has been recommended for demolition; therefore special justification exists for a replacement dwelling in this location. The footprint of the proposal is double the size of the existing dwelling; however due to the careful design and lack of public views into the site from the existing mature trees that front the site, it is concluded that the development would not have a detrimental impact upon the character or appearance of the countryside and is therefore acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION:- Grant subject to conditions.

Summary of Reasons for Recommendation and Relevant Development Plan Policies :

Having regard to the pattern of existing development in the area, representations received and relevant provisions of the development plan, as summarised below according to their degree of consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework, it is considered that subject to compliance with the conditions attached to this permission, the proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan as it would involve the replacement of an existing dwelling, would not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area, highway safety, residential amenity or important trees.

Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan (2001):- Policies RES10, NE5, BE1 and T5.

Local Plan 2006 - 2026: Core Strategy (2009):- Policies 4 and 24.

236

Conditions:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans: drawing number 1306 P02a - Proposed Site Plan, 1306 P01c - Existing Plans and Elevations, 1306 P03c - Proposed Plans and Elevations, 1306 P04a - Proposed Views received 15 December 2014.

3 No development shall commence on site until such time as the existing and proposed ground levels of the site, and proposed finished floor levels have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall then be implemented in accordance with approved proposed ground levels and finished floor levels.

4 Before any development commences, representative samples of the types and colours of materials to be used on the external elevations of the proposed dwellings shall be deposited with and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with those approved materials.

5 No development shall commence until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include a site specific Tree Protection Plan identifying protected areas where there shall be no alteration to ground levels, no compaction of the soil, no stacking or storing of any materials and no service trenches. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme.

6 All changes in ground levels, hard landscaping, planting, seeding or turfing shown on the approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out during the first planting and seeding season (October - March inclusive) following the commencement of the development or in such other phased arrangement as may be agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Any trees or shrubs which, within a period of 5 years of being planted die are removed or seriously damaged or seriously diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

7 No development works shall commence until existing trees, identified to be retained in the approved landscaping scheme, have been protected by the erection of temporary protective fences in accordance with BS5837:2012 and are of a height, size and in positions which shall previously have been agreed, in writing, with the local planning authority. The protective fences shall be retained through out the duration of building and engineering works in the vicinity of the trees to be protected.

Reasons:-

1 To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3 To ensure that the development has a satisfactory external appearance and in the interests of visual amenity to accord with Policy BE1 (criterion a) of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan.

237

4 To ensure that the development has a satisfactory external appearance to accord with Policy BE1 (criterion a) of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan.

5 To ensure the existing trees are adequately protected during construction and the proposed landscaping of the scheme is in keeping with the character of the area in the interests of the visual amenities of the area to accord with Policy NE12 of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan.

6 To ensure the approved landscaping scheme is undertaken in a timely fashion and is continually maintained to accord with Policy NE12 of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan.

7 To ensure that existing trees are not damaged during construction and that soil bulk density will not be increased and be detrimental to long-term tree health to accord with Policy NE12 of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan.

Notes to Applicant:-

4 All works within the limits of the Highway with regard to the access shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Southern Area Manager (0116 3052202).

Contact Officer:- Helen Wilson Ext 5691

238

Item: 11

Reference: 14/01104/FUL

Applicant: Mr Adam Preston

Location: Land Leicester Lane Desford

Proposal: Erection of agricultural building

RECOMMENDATION:- Grant subject to conditions.

Introduction:-

This application is to be considered at Planning Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, as the floor space of the development proposed exceeds 500 square metres.

Application Proposal

This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a multipurpose agricultural building to store agricultural machinery and straw located within an existing farm complex at Manor Hill Farm, Desford.

The existing farmstead comprises of three agricultural buildings and a temporary dwelling permitted under 14/00533/FUL. The first building, which is situated adjacent to Leicester Lane, is utilised for the storage of grain, building two is utilised to store kit and acts as a small workshop. The third building houses beef cattle twelve months of the year and there are 240 cattle within the shed at any one time.

The proposal would have a gross floor space of 603 square metres and be approximately 67 metres by 9 metres in width. The height of the proposal would be approximately 4.6 metres with a mono-pitch roof. The proposal would be constructed from green corrugated tin sheets to match existing farm buildings. The frontage will be open with supports 6.1 metres apart. The building would be erected on the existing hardstanding of the farm yard.

The Site and Surrounding Area

Manor Hill Farm is located to the east of Desford and is within the countryside. The site is accessed from Leicester Lane via an existing single track concrete roadway. The site benefits from open views from the countryside and is visible from Leicester Lane.

The existing farm complex features three agricultural buildings of a uniform style and a temporary dwelling located west of the proposed site. There is a raised grass bank adjacent to the existing farmyard partially obscuring the temporary dwelling. The plot that would accommodate the proposed agricultural dwelling would be sited directly adjacent to the grass bank and would sit opposite the principle elevations of the existing agricultural buildings. Agricultural machinery is currently being stored on the proposed application plot.

239

Technical Documents submitted with the application

Additional justification for the proposal was requested on the 4th February 2015. A statement was received by the Local Authority was received on 16th February 2015. This outlines how the proposed agricultural building would be utilised in relation to the existing agricultural enterprise and why this need cannot be met within the existing farm complex.

Relevant Planning History:-

02/00289/GDO Erection of agricultural grain GDO 26.03.02 storage building

13/00055/FUL Erection of agricultural Refused 30.05.13 dwelling

13/00605/GDO A portal framed agricultural GDO 19.08.13 link building to fit between two existing agricultural buildings

14/00533/FUL Erection of a temporary farm Approved 24.09.14 dwelling (revised proposal)

Consultations:-

A site notice was displayed and neighbours notified.

240

No objections have been received from:-

Environment Agency Leicestershire County Council (Footpaths) Environmental Health (Drainage) Desford Parish Council.

Policy:-

National Policy Guidance

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012

Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan 2001

Policy BE1: Design and Siting of Development Policy NE5: Development in the Countryside Policy T5: Highway Safety

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents

Design of Farm Buildings (SPG)

Appraisal:-

The main considerations in determination of this application are:-

• The principle of development • Siting and Design and impacts on the Character of the Countryside • Residential Amenity Highway Safety

Principle of Development

Policy NE5 of the Local Plan supports development in the countryside that is important to the local economy and cannot be provided within or adjacent to existing settlements and for the extension of existing buildings in the countryside subject to a number of design criteria being satisfied.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seeks to protect the countryside, whilst allowing sustainable development where it is appropriate.

Paragraph 28 of the NPPF supports the development of agricultural enterprise in order to promote a strong rural economy.

Justification for the building has been provided. This states that the proposed agricultural building would feature 11 bays. Two bays would be needed to store cake for younger calves and maize gluten for older cattle. According to the evidence submitted these cannot be mixed whilst new central Government guidance states all minerals are to be kept undercover. Currently these minerals are kept off site due to lack of storage. The additional 9 bays would be used to store bales of straw used for bedding. The proposed agricultural building would hold 567 bales whilst 3 bales are used per day as part of the existing beef cattle enterprise.

The requirements of the beef cattle enterprise cannot be met through the existing agricultural buildings due to a recent change in Government legislation. The three cropping policy

241 requires three crops to be grown from 2015 onwards, thus the existing grain store will need to be split to store both wheat and rape whilst another crop would need to be stored for part of the year within the remaining building currently used as a workshop.

Accordingly the function of the proposed agricultural storage building has been established and is considered and an appropriate and justifiable use as part of the existing agricultural enterprise within the countryside. The proposal and principle of development is therefore considered to be in accordance with the NPPF and Policy NE5 of the Local Plan.

Siting, Design and Impact on the Surrounding Countryside

The proposed building would be located within the existing farm complex and be constructed on the existing hardstanding. The proposed building would be open fronted with vertical supports six metres apart. The proposal would feature a mono-pitched roof and would be finished in a green colour, replicating the design of the existing agricultural buildings within the farm complex. The siting of the proposal would be partially obscured by an existing grass bank which is approximately 2.0 metres in height.

The building would be visible from the public highway, however, it is considered substantially subservient to the existing agricultural buildings and as such would not appear as unduly prominent or visually harmful within the landscape. On balance, although the scale of the building would be significant, by virtue of its siting and design, it is not considered to result in a significantly adverse impacts on the character of the surrounding countryside or landscape and would be in keeping with the design of the existing buildings. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy NE5 (criterion ii) and BE1 (criterion a) of the adopted Local Plan together with the SPG on the Design of Farm Buildings.

Residential Amenity

Policy BE1 (criterion i) requires that development does not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties. The nearest residential property is the temporary dwelling itself and as a result of the existing agricultural uses of the site, together with its proposed use (storage), no adverse impact on residential amenity will result. No other residential properties are located near enough to the site to be affected by the development. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy BE1 (criterion i).

Highway Safety

There is adequate access, parking and manoeuvring within the farm complex to accommodate traffic associated with the farm. There is an existing tarmac/concrete access track from Leicester Lane which is adequate to serve the proposed development. The

242 proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy NE5 (criterion iv) and T5 of the adopted Local Plan.

Other Matters

At the time of writing the Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposal in respect of flood risk, surface water run off or the storage proposals for the collection and spreading of slurry.

Conclusion

The NPPF supports the development of agricultural businesses and as such an agricultural building within an existing farm complex is considered to comprise of sustainable development and is therefore acceptable in principle. As a result of the siting, scale and design of the building together with the proposed materials the proposal would not have any materially adverse impact on the character or appearance of the site or the surrounding countryside. As a result of the existing uses on the site and scale of the proposal there will be no adverse impact on the amenities of any neighbouring properties. The proposal will not have any adverse impact on highway safety or the existing public right of way. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with adopted Local Plan Policies NE5 and BE1 together with the SPG on Design of Farm Buildings and paragraph 28 of the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION:- Grant subject to conditions.

Summary of Reasons for Recommendation and Relevant Development Plan Policies :

Having regard to the pattern of existing development in the area, representations received and relevant provisions of the development plan, as summarised below according to their degree of consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework, it is considered that subject to compliance with the conditions attached to this permission, the proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan as the principle of development is considered acceptable within the farm setting and by virtue of the siting, scale, design and proposed materials there would not be any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the site or surrounding countryside, residential amenity, public rights of way or highway safety.

Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan (2001):- Policies NE5, BE1 and T5.

Conditions:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the submitted application details, as follows: Site Location Plan 1:2500, Dwg No.1:200 floor base, front and rear elevation, Dwg No. 1:50 & 1:200 side elevation of proposed building, and Dwg No. 1:50 & 1:200 side elevation of proposed building received by the local planning authority on 22 January 2015

3 The development shall be constructed in accordance with the material details identified on section 9 of the application form.

243

4 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include:

a) planting plans b) written specifications c) schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate. d) implementation programme.

5 The approved hard and soft landscaping scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The soft landscaping scheme shall be maintained for a period of five years from the date of planting. During this period any trees or shrubs which die or are damaged, removed, or seriously diseased shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of a similar size and species to those originally planted at which time shall be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons:-

1 To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

2 For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3 To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development in accordance with Policy BE1 of the adopted Local Plan.

4 To ensure an appropriate landscaping scheme to the front of the proposal in the interest of visual amenity of the area, in accordance with Policy BE1 (a) of the adopted Hinckley and Bosworth Local Plan.

5 To ensure that the work is carried out within a reasonable period and thereafter maintained to accord with Policy BE1 (criteria a) and NE12; of the adopted Hinckley & Bosworth Local Plan.

Notes to Applicant:-

4 All works within the limits of the Highway with regard to the access shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Southern Area Manager (0116 3052202).

Contact Officer:- Paul Howson Ext 5619

244